OCRd by Sanjeev Sabhlok. PDF here. RTF here.

A History of the Indian Liberal Party

BY Dr. B. D. SHUKLA, M.A., Ph.D., Professor and Head of the Department of History, TY S S D. College,
Kanpur

THE INDIAN PRESS, ALLAHABAD, 1960

Contents
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................. 1
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
Evolution of Modern Liberalism and its Creed: .................................................................................. 5
LIBERALISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY—The Industrial Revolution:..................................................... 11
CHAPTER II: THE GENESIS OF INDIAN LIBERALISM ............................................................................... 21
Raja Rum Mohan Roy & the Pioneers ............................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER III : ‘THE GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL MOVEMENT AND THE FORMATIVE
INFLUENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER IV: THE FIRST PHASE OF INDIAN LIBERALISM AND ITS CIL1RACITRISTIC FEATITRES ............ 57
CHAPTER V: INDIAN LIBERALS IN THE CURZON ERA—THE SURAT ‘SPLIT’ ............................................ 79
CHAPTER VI: THE MO R LEV-M INTO AND MONT FORD REFORMS AND THE FOUNDATION OF ‘THE
ALL INDIA NATIONAL LIBERAL FEDERATION ......................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER VII: THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK .............................................................................. 126
CHAPTER VIII: INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS..................................................... 148
CHAPTER IX: THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY (1923-47) .......................................................................... 176
CHAPTER X: LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES ........................................................................ 233
CHAPTER XI: SOME LIBERAL LEADERS & THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS ........................................................ 248
CHAPTER XII: EPILOGUE: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 265
APPENDIX I: THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA .......................................................................................... 276
APPENDIX II: CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL FEDERATION OF INDIA............................. 298

FOREWORD
Dr. B. D. Shukla, M.A., Ph.D., has done me the honour of asking me to write a foreword to this work,
which is a revised version of his thesis for the Ph.D. degree of the Agra University. I do so with
particular pleasure because it seems to me that political piety clamours for a due recognition of the
national services of the Indian “Moderates” or Liberals which Dr. Shukla has attempted in this work.

1
I am sure that discerning readers will find Dr. Shukla’s work to be a valuable addition to the extant
literature on the political history of India during the period under survey in the work. So far as I am
aware, no integrated account of the origins of Indian Liberalism, their ideology, their contributions
to the political thinking and activity of the period has been attempted before hint. There are of
course scores of works—monographs, biographies, collections of speeches and writings of the
“moderate” leaders, and constitutional histories. But Dr. Shukla has concentrated on the work of the
Indian Liberals as a group of political workers, and has, in my humble opinion, made a fair and just
assessment of their services to the nation. I have no doubt that no student of the political history of
the period can afford to ignore the work even though he might differ from any of Dr. Shukla’s
conclusions.

The importance of the Liberal contribution to free India’s constitutional and political structure is
apparent from the fact that we still maintain a close political relationship with Great Britain, our
constitution is based on most of the ideas clear to the Indian Liberals, and the bulk of the politically-
conscious citizens of India want basically to move along the lines chalked out by the Liberals. Where
the Republic of India differs from that ideology is in its effort to establish a “Socialist Pattern of
Society” in the country. It is still doubtful, though, how far the Congress can carry the country along
with it in the realisation of these aims. The recent foundation of the “Swatantra” party, and indeed,
the entire body of “Independents” in Indian politics to-day, represent the old ‘Liberal’ point of view
in all fundamental aspects.

I think that both scholars and the general reader will find much of value in Dr. Shukla’s work, and
would welcome its addition to our current political literature.

June 26, 1959 KC Bhatnagar

2
PREFACE
The present generation in India is apt to discount the services of the Liberal leaders of the Indian
National Congress before the Gandhian era who had placed India on the road to political freedom.
There is the same danger of their services as ministers and mediators since 1920 being relegated to
the limbo of history as the inconsequential vapourings of the stooges of British Imperialism.

A comprehensive survey of the activities of these Liberal pioneers and heralds of Indian Swaraj was,
therefore, not only desirable but overdue to acquire a proper perspective for the study of India’s
recent social and political history. The present book is an humble attempt in this direction. It is the
revised version of my thesis for the Ph.D. degree of the Agra University. The thesis was approved in
1955, but owing to certain unavoidable circumstances it could not see the light till now. It is hoped
that this objective attempt at an assessment of the Liberal contribution to India’s struggle for
freedom and her national reconstruction would be found helpful for the purpose.

In this work of piecing together the history of the Liberal Party, I have received great help from Sri K.
C. Bhatnagar until lately Secretary of the U. P. Legislative Assembly who very kindly permitted me to
work in the Assembly library and made all necessary reports available to me. I can never forget the
help which I received from the late Sri S. R. Bajpai, the Secretary of the Servants of India Society,
Allahabad. He very kindly allowed me the free use of the Servants of India Society Library, Allahabad.
He handed over the keys of the library to me to work there and lent me ungrudgingly 40 to 50 books
at a time to take home for more leisurely use. In him I have found the true ‘Servant’ of the Society
founded by Gokhale in 1905. My thanks are due also to the authorities of the Lucknow University
Library, Imadudaullah Public Library, Lucknow, S. I. S. Library, Lucknow, Allahabad University Library,
Allahabad Public Library, Leader Press Library, Allahabad, National Library, Calcutta and other local
libraries for their ready help in supplying me with the necessary material.

I am grateful to the late Acharya Narendra Derma, Dr. H. N. Kunzru, ex-Justice P. N. Salmi, Mr. R.
Zutshi, the editor of the Leader, Mr. K. P. Kaul, the late Dr. Brijendra Swarup, M.L.C. for giving me
some lust hand information about the Liberal Party and its work.

I ant deeply indebted to Dr. Ishwari Prasad, Professor Emeritus of the Allahabad University, Dr. M. P.
Sharma of the Nagpur University. Dr. Nand Lal Chatterjee of the Lucknow University for their
valuable suggestions which I have utilized in this work. My grateful thanks are also due to Principal L.
C. Tandon of my college who helped me at every step generously in the completion of this work.

I must finally express my gratitude to my supervisor and guide, Prof. Kali Shnaker Bhatnagar, under
whose fostering care I have been able to ‘accomplish this task. Without his ungrudging help and
guidance, my task would have been more difficult than it has been; and I am not. indulging in any
more formality in expressing my gratitude to hint. I am Further grateful to him for his condescending
to write a foreword to this book.

I am deeply indebted to Professor S. R. Misra, M.A. and Shri S. N. P. Jaiswal, M.A. of English and
Geography departments respectively and Shri H. M. Garg for their kind assistance in the preparation
of the index of this book.

3
I must also express my gratitude to Sri H. Ghosh, the Managing Director of the Indian Press.
Allahabad for his voluntarily undertaking, and showing personal interest in. the publication of this
book.

I apologise to readers in general for certain spelling mistakes left out probably owing to inadvertent
proof-reading and it is with this end in view that an errata is being affixed.

KANPUR

October, 19

B. D. SHUKLA

4
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Evolution of Modern Liberalism and its Creed:
This work is an attempt to assess the part that the Indian Liberal Party (1918-1948) played in the
recent social and political history of India. The Indian Liberals, or ‘Moderates’ as they began to be
called after 1907, functioned as a self-contained political party from 1918 1and, so to speak. faded
out of existence in 1948-49, but their social and political activities dated from long before 1918. They
inherited a tradition and a mission which have an unbroken history from Raja Ram Mohan Roy to Sir
Tej Bahadur Sapru. Further, they drew their inspiration from the contemporary Liberal thought of
Europe generally and of Great Britain in particular, although their actual program of work was
necessarily different from that of their British counterparts. The first three chapters of the book
have, therefore, been devoted seriatim to an introductory study of the evolution of Modern
Liberalism, the genesis of Indian Liberalism from the days of Raja Ram Mohan Roy onwards, and an
assessment of the formative influences that shaped Indian Liberalism as a political force from its
earliest stirrings down to the end of the 19th century.

The subject-matter of Chapters II & III of the present work has been studied by many scholars as part
of the general national and political development of the country since the first War of
Independence. It is hoped, however, that the re-evaluation made herein, from the specific
standpoint of this book, will clarify, slightly differently and afresh, the pregnant role played by the
Indian Liberals in the social and political life of India during the contemporary phase of its history.

Liberalism may be defined as an attitude of mind and a way of life which seeks for more and more of
freedom for the individual in his personal and social activity.2 This quest would appear to be
ingrained in human nature itself. Two innate urges—one towards freedom, and the other towards
domination—reveal themselves in the conduct of the individual and the life of society and act and
react on each other. The urge to freedom is activated by the power of reason and that towards
domination by the energy of egoism. The struggle is constant; at times, it may be dormant but it is
never non-existent, only its detection may be difficult. Social and political progress Means. in the last
analysis, the achievement of an equilibrium between these two forces in society. This is always a
relative thing, and this fact points to the eternal nature of the struggle.

This struggle between freedom and authority has been active since times immemorial. Force and
authority constitute the very warp and woof of the State. Whether in classical antiquity or in
medieval feudalism or in the modern age, the State has ever had for its basis an authoritarian order.
To resolve the rigidity of this order and to restore to the individual the full plentitude of initiative
and enterprise has been the persistent endeavour of the liberal. spirit. Its attacks on
authoritarianism have been diverse in form and heterodox in origins, but have always been coloured
by the basic thought of the age in which they have been operative.

In other words, the liberal process has employed the weapons of the age for combating the wrongs
of the age. The ‘cake of custom’ has always been broken by the force of timely innovation.

1
The party adopted the designation of the “National Liberal Federation of India” in 1919 at the second session
held in Calcutta: vide Resolution 14, Para 2, Report N.L.F. 1936, Appendix F., pp. 1i1-112
2
“ …. it is directly related to freedom; for it came as the foe of privilege conferred on any class in the
community by virtue of birth or creed.” Harold J. Laski: The Rise of European Liberalism, Allen & Unwin, 2nd
impression, 1947, p. 15.

5
The ‘Liberal’ spirit has also been co-extensive with life. No branch of human thought and activity has
been beyond the ambit of its influence. It has affected religion, science, ethics, philosophy, politics
and indeed all that relates to human life and work. Negatively, it has functioned in evoking doubt
and suspicion against the established, orthodox routine of life and work. It has refused to believe in
the validity of anything simply because it is hallowed by tradition and accepted by current
conformity. It has invoked the aid of reason in the proving of a particular rite, custom, dogma or
creed. Positively, it has initiated ways and ushered in methods that have placed new value upon old
familiar things and has often interpreted new innovations in terms of old ideas. This dual function of
liberalism has helped man to evolve new policies in politics, exalt new values in philosophy, develop
new techniques in science and economics, to attempt new interpretations in ethics, or to introduce
new vogues in literature and the fine arts.

Further, the liberal spirit has not been limited to any particular clime, country, race or religion,
though its growth has been slow or fast in harmony with the circumstances of different stages of
their evolution. In the present chapter we shall endeavour to seek the origin and growth of modern
Liberalism in the West and try to analyse its distinctive features.

The Renaissance: The Renaissance may be regarded as the first prominent landmark in the evolution
of European Liberalism in modern times. The revival of Greek (and later, Latin) studies, the
introduction of the printing press, the Mariner’s compass and Gunpowder, the revived study of
physical sciences—all served to herald fundamental changes in European society. Higher learning
now spread to classes other than the clergy and the new studies stimulated criticism of and bred
doubt in dogma and tradition. The new science began slowly to unload the European mind of the
deadweight of superstition and blind beliefs, and helped to establish the reign of rational law in the
realm of Nature. The study of Plato and Aristotle, Herodotus and Homer, Plutarch and Pliny gave a
new orientation to the European mind, and a new slant on the universe to the thinkers of the time.
The ‘neo-pagan outlook’ upon man, nature and God, secular and rationalistic in its implications,
began to transform European thought and to provide new themes for contemporary litterateurs and
artists. The Renaissance imparted a rare brilliance and an uncommon splendour to the architecture,
painting, music and literature of the Age as acquaintance with Classical Art spread in European
countries.

The Geographical Discoveries: While these new forces began slowly to undermine feudal society in
Europe, two offshoots of the Renaissance, namely, the geographical discoveries and the
Reformation, further quickened the pace of change. The Geographical discoveries of the 15th and
16th centuries widened the horizons of knowledge by acquainting the Europeans with a bewildering
diversity of human laws, customs and institutions and a vast amount. of purely physical and
biological facts.

They created ‘Oceanic’ commerce and increased the wealth and social influences of the mercantile
classes. In the words of Prof. Laski, “no factor was more potent than geographical discovery in
persuading men that institutions are by no means unchangeable and that the human will is itself a
factor in the making of a change”.3 Men began to acquire the habit of tolerance for unfamiliar
customs and institutions and of critical and comparative assessment of their own by the light of
reason. Further, this expansion of Europe and the commercial and political rivalries that it created,

3
Article on “The Rise of Liberalism” in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. I, p. 104.

6
led to the break-up of the ‘respublica Christiana’ and assisted at the birth of the modern ‘nation-
states’ of Europe. The age of colonial conflicts favoured absolute monarchies, such as in Tudor
England, Bourbon France, and Hapsburg Spain. In Church and State alike, nationalism became a
powerful and self-conscious force. Side by side with these developments the new colonialism and
commercialism also enhanced the importance, the influence and the demands of the new
commercial classes. The emergence of this new ‘bourgeoisie’ as a political factor deserves closer
attention, and will be dealt with later.

Thus, the Renaissance is the primary background of modern European Liberalism. The rational
outlook, which is its very heart-beat, began to characterise all social and intellectual thinking now. In
place of taking things on ecclesiastical authority, men began now to trust more to the methods of
observation, comparison and experiment and to sift the knowledge thus gained by the light of
reason. —Lhere were thus present all the solvents required for the final rejection of medievalism. To
abolish Providence was to throw man back upon himself. To throw him back thus was to insist that
reason must know no bounds to the empire it investigates. Once that is argued, the way lies open
for the emergence of the liberal spirit.”4

The Reformation: The impulse generated by the Renaissance Assumed newer forms in Northern
Europe. In Germany, Luther converted the Renaissance into the Reformation. In France, apart from
the new literature to which it gave birth, the new spirit expressed itself in a life of gaiety and
latitudinarianism in secular society but in Calvinism among the religious-minded. In England, it gave
birth to the Anglican Church. The religious controversies that the birth of the new churches
occasioned on the one hand between each of them and the Roman Catholic Church, and on the
other between them inter .ce, weakened the hold of dogma on men’s minds, and in the final
analysis, popularised the appeal to reason. After almost a century of intellectual and military clashes
between them its final outcome was the acceptance of the principle of religious toleration as an
inevitable condition of peaceful civic existence. Thus, in the words of Prof. Laski, Liberalism came to
be “the younger and unwanted child of the Reformation”.5

Further, the Reformation gathered to itself and incorporated many other revolutionary tendencies.
It was also a revolt of the laity against clerical tutelage; a rebellion of the individual against authority:
a rising of emancipated human reason against tradition and convention; a protest of the national
conscience of man against corruption of the Roman penitential system; an attack of the secular
power upon the accumulated wealth of the religious.”6

The Reformation also thus promoted a liberal temper in European minds. It indirectly contributed to
the adoption of toleration in the realm of faith, and to the rational discussion of the secular
problems of the day. Several con-temporary writers essayed to formulate their views in the form of
Utopias. More’s “Utopia” (1596) painted an imaginary picture of community of property. state-
controlled family life, religious toleration and liberal education for all. Similarly, Andreae’s
“Christianopolis” (1619), Bacon’s “New Atlantis” (1627), Campanella’s “City of the Sun” (1637) and
Harrington’s “Oceana” (1656) advocate the spread of education, talk of model city states, give the

4
Article on “The Rise of Liberalism” in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. I, p. 104.
5
Article on “The Rise of Liberalism” in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. I, p. 103. Also, “The Rise of
European Liberalism” by the same author, p. 30.
6
Hearnshaw’s article on “Renaissance and Reformation” in Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vol. I, pp. 93-94.

7
first inkling of the ‘economic interpretation of history,’ stress the importance of economic equality
for the establishment of political democracy and anticipate diverse ideas relating to property,
liberty, state activity, philosophy and social behaviour that formed the basis for thinkers of the
succeeding generations.

Emergence of the Bourgeoisie: One result of this ferment of ideas and appearance of new
institutions and activities in this age was the emergence of the middle class in the 17th century. This
class steadily grew conscious of its power. It was no longer poor either. Under the teachings of
Protestantism in general and of Calvinism in particular, it began to live a simple frugal life unlike the
spend-thrift nobility. The geographical discoveries and the resultant expansion of commerce placed
this class in a position of vantage which impelled them to secure more and more political power.

This political ambition is discernible in the two revolutions—the Dutch and the English. It was
essential for the growth of the middle class that royal despotism should be liquidated. It could
prosper only under the benign shelter of constitutionalism. Religious toleration was essential for it
because without it their property was insecure. It was in the interest of this class that the powers of
the king were limited lest it should be crushed under heavy royal taxation. It was also necessary for
its growth that the powers of the aristocracy were liquidated and that there should be peace and
freedom of individual enterprise. So, for the establishment of the new economic order, a secular
state was a pre-requisite. This lent a ‘liberal’ tone to politics in the 17th and 18th centuries. As
education became more wide-spread through newspapers, periodicals, libraries, reading rooms, new
academies and universities, etc., this tendency grew stronger. Much of the literature of the age was
written to deride the nobleman and exalt the middle class. Thus the growth and development of the
middle class are inseparably intertwined with the evolution of modern Liberalism.

The Glorious Revolution: The Glorious Revolution of England (1688) marks the next definite stage in
the growth of Liberalism not only in the history of England but that of the whole continent. The
Revolution rid England of monarchical despotism without ridding her of the monarchy. It gave
supreme power to Parliament. It was Parliament which invited William III and Mary to take up the
reigns of the Government. By the Act of 1701, the Parliament established its supremacy further by
deciding the line of succession to the tin one of England. Above all. the Revolution of 1688 set up a
national liberal tradition, since the two political parties which divided the state. were committed to
settling their disputes by means of acts of Parliament rather than by resort to arms as in the lands
beyond the English Channel.

This great historical event laid also the beginning of His Majesty’s Opposition and the Cabinet
System. The two-part v system is largely the fruit of this Revolution—the majority being in the
control of the Government and the minority in Opposition. It had a great legal significance. The work
of opposing the Government was not to he looked upon as an act of treason and hence punishable
with drastic measures. but it was to he a part of the legal frame-work of the state. The Cabinet
system nurtured during the regime of Sir Robert ‘Walpole (1721-1743) was another constitutional
innovation of the age, and it began to function now in the name of the king as the Government.
gradually sapping his powers and reducing him to a figurehead. This ultimate acceptance of
constitutional changes and the gradual growth of the liberty of the press. speech and faith made the
contemporary thinkers of the Continent agape with wonder and admiration, and England became
the Utopia of their political dreams throughout the 18th century. The French Liberals like Voltaire

8
and Montesquieu went to England to study the English Constitution and hailed England as the land
of the free.

With the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the Liberal Movement reached a stage from where it can he
studied under various specific aspects so as to stress its distinctive features. An attempt will he made
in the following pages to assess how far Liberalism influenced the various sections of the Community
in the 18th century.

Liberalism of the Aristocracy: The Parliament as shaped by the Revolution of 1688 was almost
exclusively manned by the landed aristocracy. The two political parties of the day—the Whigs and
Tories--both belonged to the same social class, and they were divided only by a difference of
emphasis on various national institutions or the possible tempo of social change. So, neither
suffered any loss by the Revolution.

The Parliament, under the control of the landed aristocracy, passed many acts for the benefit of
their class, such as the corn laws and the Enclosure acts of the 18th century.7

But it also tried to foster trade and commerce and expand British colonies in the interests of
merchants and traders. Both Sir Robert Walpole and William Pitt the elder worked for the economic
prosperity of the country—the former by keeping peace with foreign powers and the latter by his
vigorous imperialism. This ‘national’ economic and commercial policy of the state proved conducive
to the prosperity of the mercantile classes and they felt gratified. The masses, however, had not yet
realised the significance of these constitutional changes, nor were they directly affected by them.

The political philosopher of aristocratic Liberalism at that time was Locke who frankly asserted that
the object of his “Two Treatises of Government” was “to establish the throne of our great Restorer,
our present king William III, and make good his title in the consent of the people.”8 For this purpose
he had to initiate a theory of the state in harmony with the settlement made by the Revolution—a
sovereign created by law, the rights of the people, religious toleration and freedom of individual
enterprise. This he achieved by his peculiar version of the social contract.

Locke had no belief in despotic authority or in the theory of divine right or in Republicanism, but
liked to retain kingship under certain restrictions. He wanted to give legislative powers to the
representatives of the people and executive powers to the king, the former being, in his view, more
important than the latter. To him the criterion of good government was that all its acts should be
compatible with the natural rights of men.

In the realm of religion, Locke favoured toleration, but under certain conditions. If any religion was a
menace to the social order of the country, it could be suppressed by force. It was on this basis that
he declined to grant tole-ration to the Catholics who believed in an extra-territorial allegiance, and
to Muslims whose religious views did not fit in with the frame-work of European society. On no
other account was he prepared to permit the use of force in imposing any particular religious views
on others. He held no truck with Theocracy, and so the magistrate could not do any thing to minister

7
“Seventy enclosure acts were passed for the benefit of landed aristocrats between (1700-1760) and during
the first 33 years of the reign of George III (1760-1793) 355 such acts were passed.” “A Political History of
Modern Europe” by Hayes, Vol. I, p. 462.
8
Quoted in “The Rise of Liberalism” by Laski in Ency. Social Sciences, Vol. I, p. 112.

9
to the spiritual needs of the people. Religion was to him a purely personal affair. This is the
beginning of the principle of freedom of conscience which is a precursor of secular government.

The fathers of the American Revolution were profoundly influenced by the views of Locke and they
in turn influenced the French Revolution. Thus the Lockian contribution to Liberalism is the threefold
rational basis of society, viz., the doctrine of natural rights, the consent of the people in government,
and secularism.

The French Revolution and Middle Class Liberalism: In the great age of Louis XIV. France had made
no headway towards constitutional government as then established in England and Holland. But
after 1685, the French system was beginning to betray increasingly signs of decay. The writings of
Saint Simon, Fenelon, Vauban and others focussed public attention on defects and essayed to
convert public opinion to their views. When peaceful means failed, the inherent urge of Liberalism
clashed violently with authoritatianism and the result was the Revolution of 1789. Harold Laski
succinctly sums up the situation in one sentence, “The failure of French Liberalism in the 17th
century to secure institutional expression is the essential cause of the break-down in 1789.”9

The Commercial Revolution of the 17th century had created the ‘bourgeoisie’ class which steadily
grew in wealth and this class became the driving force of the movement to overhaul the French
Ancient Regime and replace it by a liberal social and political order. The French ‘Philosophes’ were
its mouthpiece. Unlike English Liberalism growing front precedent to precedent, French Liberalism,
as adumbrated by the Philosophes, was “abstract, doctrinaire and dogmatic”. In ale words of De
Ruggiero, French Revolutionary Liberalism was “genuinely new, because instead of basing itself upon
the privileged liberties of the middle ages it arose from their ashes. It was far more akin to the spirit
of the absolute monarchy, which had already begun to destroy the feudal world and had given to its
subjects the feeling of equality. The new Liberalism like the monarchy was egalitarian, but its
egalitarianism was inspired and ennobled by a broader rationalistic consciousness ‘attributing to all
men one identical spiritual and human value.10

Though a government based on the principles of the French Revolution really came into being only
under the Third French Republic, yet a liberal state ‘was set up by the French constitution of 1791. It
was in some ways even more liberal than the British system of 1689. Its declaration of the Rights of
Man was a written guarantee of civil rights philosophically much more consistent and broadbased
than its prototypes, the English Bill of. Rights or the American Declaration. Its unicameral legislature
effectively undermined aristocratic influence. By adopting a relatively lower franchise, it admitted
nearly 60% of the adult male population of France to the right of vote.

Another contribution of the French Revolution to the Liberal movement was the Jacobin constitution
of 1793, which, though still-born, envisaged a democratic Republic with a unicameral legislature
elected by direct manhood suffrage and the adoption of 111,2 constitution by a nationwide
plebescite. Furthermore, the provision for a national system of popular education and the right of
every citizen to work were its other notable features.

9
“Rise of Liberalism” by H. J. Laski in Ency. of the Social Sciences, Vol. I, p. 108.
10
Guide De Ruggiero, “The History of European Liberalism, translated from the Italian by R. G. Collingwood
(London, 1927), pp. 81-82.

10
The French Revolution stood for a classless egalitarian society with proper safeguards for individual
rights of property. ‘This belief was shared by all the thinkers of the age —Condorcet in France,
Bentham in England and Jefferson in America. For safeguarding the individual citizen’s freedom of
enterprise all guilds, corporations and associations were abolished by the French Revolution. Finally
it established a secular state by first subordinating the Catholic Church to the state and then by its
virtual abolition.

LIBERALISM IN THE 19TH CENTURY—The Industrial Revolution:

Thus, the English Glorious Revolution of England (1688), the American Revolution of 1783, and the
French Revolution of 1789 provided for the Liberals of the period a wide socio-political program. In
the 19th century, it received a fresh impetus by the economic upheaval brought about by the
Industrial Revolution. Under its impact, between 1830 and 1870, Liberalism attained full maturity. It
evolved during this period a definite body of well-defined principles—a consistent social and political
philosophy characteristic economic doctrines, and a distinctive international policy. Its basic
philosophy rested on the liberty of thought which in the words of L. T. Hobhouse means “freedom
from inquisition into opinions that a man forms in his own mind--the inner citadel where, if
anywhere, the individual must rule.”11 Liberty of thought is closely connected with freedom of
religion since the Liberals regarded religion as a personal affair of the individual. One’s religion,
according to the liberal view, was the concrete expression of a personal attitude to life, to one’s
kind, to nature, world. God, etc.

In politics, it stood for the principle of laissez faire, according to which the function of the State was
to protect and to restrain. but not to foster or promote the interests of the individual. The ultimate
ideal of the individualist was succinctly expressed by Freeman when he said that “the ideal form of
government is no government at all”. In other words, that government is the best which governs the
least. Liberals of the first half of the 19th century held that the state should ‘hold the ring’, suppress
force or fraud, keep property safe, enforce private contracts when necessary, and leave the
individual free for the rest to pursue his enterprises as he liked. They believed in the representative
and parliamentary form of government at home, and in international peace and unity abroad. They
hated was as destructive of property, trade, life and liberty. Retrenchment and economy, specially in
military expenditure, was consequently one of their pet principles.

In the social sphere, Liberalism supported a national system of Free Education, and insisted that the
membership of an association or institution should not depend on any hereditary qualifications.
There was to be an open road to preferment for talent. In economics, the Liberal movement
delivered a slashing attack on all obstruction and inequality. It vehemently opposed navigation laws,
tariff protection, monopolies and other governmental restrictions on commerce and industry. It
stood for free trade, freedom of contract, freedom of association, free choice of work and
profession, and freedom of competition. Newer forces born of the Industrial Revolution were
however already beginning to influence the theory and practice of Liberalism in England after 1815.
A large manufacturing class had sprung up in the factory towns of England. They felt drawn to the
Liberal philosophy and willing to throw in their lot with the middle class. It became intolerable for
the wealthy merchants of factory towns like Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds that they
should have no representative in the House of Commons, whereas ‘rotten boroughs’ with no

11
Liberalism, p. 27.

11
population still continued to send two representatives. Moreover, the philosophy of utilitarianism as
preached by Jeremy Bentham and his worthy disciples, the two Mills, provided them with a program
of social, economic and political action, and prescribed a modus operandi for the achievements of
these ends.

In this clamour for reform, the voice of the Whigs was louder, probably because they had long been
out of office and a change in the electorate might bring them electoral luck. They also had greater
sympathies with industrial capitalism, as they had closer connections with the new industry. The
Tories, with a few exceptions, such as Canning and Sir Robert Peel, did not find any thing wanting in
the existing regime. After a prolonged struggle they passed the first Reform Act of 1832 which is a
landmark in the constitutional history of England and in the growth of the English Liberal movement.
It made the landed aristocracy hitherto supreme in the government of the country to share political
power with the industrialists and the middle class. In the Reformed Parliament the Whigs were
returned in a majority. Now the Whig Party embraced the middle class, the left wing of the
aristocrats, some industrialists and a few radicals and adopted the name of the ‘Liberal’ Party. The
Tory Party also dropped their old discredited appellation, assumed a fresh label in due course and
came to be known as “Conservatives”.

The period from 1832 to 1867 was the period of bourgeoisie Liberalism in England and Gladstone
exemplified it most fully. The bourgeoisie Liberals carried out far reaching reforms through the
instrumentality of the Parliament. Of these, the Poor Law of 1831 was typical. The Speenhamland
system was opposed by the classical economists on the ground that it had adversely affected the will

of the labourer to work, that it had encouraged the growth of population and impaired the basic
earning power of the labourers. But a stronger reason behind this opposition was their belief in free
enterprise and free labour. The growing factory ‘system needed a large and constant supply of cheap
labour which would come from the peasantry driven from the land by the enclosures. But the
‘speenham land system’ hampered the supply of labour to the factories. Bourgeoisie Liberalism next
turned to the repeal of the Corn laws. All elements among the bourgeoisie Liberals— classical
economists, utilitarians, philosophical radicals and the Manchester School united to demand the
repeal of the Corn laws and the establishment of free trade. Their argument was that free trade
would cheapen the price of food for the people and give an outlet to English manufactures to the
markets of the world. Each nation would specialize in the production of a commodity according to its
special advantage. Labour and capital would move freely to the land where they could be best
employed. This would reduce waste and duplication to a minimum. Thus free trade would usher in a
millennium of peace and prosperity for all nations.

The repeal of the Corn laws in 1846 was one of the greatest achievements of the bourgeoisie
liberals. With free trade was linked the policy of anti-imperialism. The old Colonial system!! was
based on mercantilism. Mercantilism meant that the colonies existed for the benefit of the mother
country and so their trade was restricted in the interests of the mother country though it benefited
the colonies also as England was the chief market for many colonial staples. So, bourgeoisie
Liberalism was indifferent to the colonies. Bentham says, “Are von attacked at home? not a man can
you ever get from them: not a single pence. Are they attacked? They draw upon you for fleets and

12
armies.”12 James Mill held that the colonies existed for the benefit of the ruling few, for they were a
source of political patronage such as “governorship and judgship”.13 Joseph Hume, the leader of the
philosophical Radicals, declared that the colonies, “instead of being an addition to the strength of
the country, increased its weakness”.14 John Stuart Mill thought that colonies held out few
advantages and many disadvantages to the mother country, which got along perfectly well with out
them.15 Gladstone also never liked to dissipate national energy in imperialist adventures.

So, under the aegis of Bougeoisie Liberalism, England witnessed an important change in British
colonial policy. Lord Durham with the assistance of Charles Buller and Edward Gibbon Wakefield
prepared the well-known Report on the affairs of British North America in 1837 and their
recommendations led to the establishment of responsible government in Canada in 1847 and finally
to the passing of the British North America Act of 1867.

One other major achievement of Bourgeoisie Liberalism was the abolition of slavery in the British
Empire in 1833.

The chief beneficiaries of the economic policies of Bourgeoisie liberalism however were the
capitalists. The disappointment of the workers with the great Reform Act of i 832 drove them into
that curious movement known as Chartism (1837-48) which sought adult male franchise for the
working classes and demanded vote by secret ballot, abolition of property qualifications, payment of
salaries to members of Parliament, annual elections and equal electoral districts. The Chartists
focussed their attention on man-hood suffrage which became the symbol of democratic Liberalism.
This demand alarmed the propertied classes. Macaulay declared at the time that “Universal suffrage
was incompatible with all ‘forms of government and with everything for the sake of which
government exists, that it is incompatible with property and that it is consequently incompatible
with civilization.”16 The Chartist movement However fizzled out, but in a characteristically English
way, five of their six points have become law in due course of time.

It was the policy of Laissez Faire that had kept together the heterogeneous elements of bourgeoisie
Liberalism. In the economic field, individual enterprise must be absolutely free to make contracts,
free to buy in the cheapest market, free to sell in the dearest, free to engage labour at the cheapest
rates, free to send its goods anywhere and free to make profits. In other words, the bourgeoisie
Liberals emphasized only the negative aspect of state activity. Gradually a new society had come
into existence in the country in which the landed aristocracy had blended with the wealthy
bourgeoisie. At Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge, the children of the capitalists met those of
the aristocracy: the parents met together at fox hunts and at directors’ meetings. Thus, there took
place a cultural and social assimilation under the pervasive influence of Bourgeoisie Liberalism. By
1867, when the second Reform Bill was passed, this social assimilation was fairly complete and
Parliament became thereafter more and more ‘bourgeoisie’ in its membership and policy. This
development corresponds to, and indeed embodies the triumph of. Liberalism under Gladstone

12
Bentham: “Emancipate your Colonies” (Bowring ed.), IV, pp. 414-415.
13
A. Bain, James Mill (London 1882), 242.
14
Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, New Series (1823), VIII, 250.
15
J. S. Mill, “Representative Government in Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government” (London,
Everyman’s Library, 1914), ply. 379-80.
16
The Complete Works of Lord Macaulay, (London, 1898-1920), XII, 8.

13
during his first administration—between 1868 and 1874, Gladstone carried out many typically liberal
reforms extending the sphere of individual liberty in the state, the church and society.

The bourgeoisie had succeeded in saving England from the revolutionary turbulence that afflicted
the continent throughout most of this period and maintained stable government in a revolutionary
age. A spirit of compromise characterised all that they did and it was this spirit that lent stability to
the institutions and solidarity to the nation.

Rise of Democratic Liberalism: As the 19th century advanced, the Liberals came gradually to favour
expansion of public control in various directions, such as the provision of State schools, prohibition,
closer regulation of the work and labour of children and women, workmen’s compensation, etc. In
the Eighties and thereafter, the more progressive wing of the English Liberal Party came to entertain
even more advanced notions, such as State trading, provision of Old Age Pensions and
Unemployment and Sickness Insurance. This advanced wing was represented in England by Joseph
Chamberlain who had actually put into operation some of these new ideas as Mayor of Birmingham.
Most of his ideas were unacceptable to Gladstone and the older Liberals, but later found a ready
acceptance even by the Conservatives, after Chamberlain joined them in 1895. The Liberal
Government of 1906-16, however, adopted this programme in full and sought through the Finance
Act of 1909 to finance it by the differential taxation of the rich to help the poor, basically a typically
socialist doctrine.

This solicitude for collectivist activities may at first sight appear to be inconsistent with the basic
principles of Liberalism, but closely viewed, it will be clear that this is not so. The new ideas
represent rather a change of method and a new application of basic Liberal principles. In the words
of L. T. Hobhouse (referring to Liberal support of Trades Unions) “the function of Liberalism is not so
much to maintain a general right of free association as to define the right in each case in such terms
as to make for the maximum of real liberty and equality”.17

Much of the work of the British Liberal Government of 1906-14 was concerned with the ‘restoration’
of ‘the social values which had been established in the previous century’18 before the diversion
caused by Gladstone’s pre-occupation with Ireland and the Imperialist adventures of the
Conservatives. Nevertheless, its most distinctive and positive work was Economic—involving a good
deal of state interference with private enterprise and designed to give greater protection and real
economic freedom to the poorer classes. The Budget of 1909, the Old Age Pensions Act, the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Wages Boards Act, the Labour Exchanges Act, the Education
(Provision of Meals) Act, and the Insurance Act to provide Sickness and Unemployment insurance to
the worker—all characterised by the State stepping in to protect the weak. The Insurance Acts,
however, only extend the principles underlying the Factory Acts to effect social reform. The taxation
of unearned increment in Land, criticised by the Conservatives as interference with the rights of

17
Liberalism” by L. T. Hobhouse, p. 89.
18
W. L. Blease: “A short History of Liberalism” (T. Fisher Unwin), 1913, p. 325.

14
property. was justified by Lord Morley as a valid attempt to settle the incidents of ownership by
reference to the ‘balance of social advantage’.19

This preoccupation with economic issues and their partially heterodox solutions, arc explained by
the worsening of social discontent at the beginning of die 20th century, the rise of Socialism and the
emergence of Socialist Labour as an active party in the State in the wake of parliamentary reforms.
The enfranchised masses now demanded that the State should assist them to realise fully and
actually the liberty and the equality which the law had conferred upon them. The newly awakened
conscience of Society was anxious to lift the curse of poverty from those afflicted by it, and even
favoured State enterprise in industries wherever it could be introduced without detriment to the
basic Liberal concept of free individual enterprise. Indeed, the Edwardian Liberals justified their work
as merely an extension of the old principles of the Manchester School and as interfering with liberty
in one direction only to enlarge it in others.

This change of focus in liberal thought can be understood more clearly only by some understanding
of the leading Liberal thinkers of the mid-19th century, such as J. S. Mill, Spencer and Green.

J. S. Mill:

John Stuart Mill was the herald of this new kind of Liberalism. In Mill one sees a happy blend of the
characteristics of the age. His Liberalism implied a classless society, and under the influence of
French philosophers like Comte, Michelet, De Tocqueville, Guizot and the I 1topian Socialists and of
De Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’, Mill felt convinced that democracy was both inevitable and
desirable for all mankind.

Mill accepted the basic principle of utilitarianism, though the principle of the “felicific calculus” did
not appeal to him. To Bentham, it is said, “Push pin was as good as poetry,” but to Mill, “it was
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. He regarded the British system of re-
presentative government as the best and favoured a democratic suffrage. It was his firm conviction
that democracy alone could guarantee for security and good government. He thought that manhood
suffrage would prevent the rich middle class from forming an oligarchy to oppress the minorities.
Mill’s ideas influenced the British Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884. He was in favour of ‘Woman
Suffrage’ because he considered women to be as much a part of the general public as men.’

Mill’s belief in manhood suffrage did not, however, make him blind to the evils of the “rule of the
numerical majority”. He doubted if the illiterate and poor masses could conduct the government. So
he pleaded for a system of popular education, which alone could supply a solvent for the problems
of democracy. To apply a further check on the tyranny of majority rule, Mill proposed plural voting
of the highly educated element and proportional representation. Though op-posed to a hereditary
upper house, he was in favour of a second house because that would apply another check on the
tyranny of the majority. But he did not appreciate the idea

See Mill’s Essay on ‘The Subjection of Women’.

VISVA-8HA KATI’

19
Lord Morley’s “Miscellanies” IV, 311.

15
of the secret ballot and wanted the elector to vote “under the eye and the criticism of the people”.
He also did not like the members of the Parliament to be paid a salary because the allurement of pay
would create a class of professional politicians. “It amounts to offering 658 prizes for the most
successful flatterer, the most adroit misleader of the body of their fellow countrymen.”‘ He did trot
appreciate the argument that payment would minimise the chances of corruption, for, he argued.
there were greater opportunities for corruption than merely payment of a salary to dishonest
legislators.

If we examine the political views of Mill, we find a marked advancement over the doctrines and
institutions of bourgeoisie Liberalism. Mill felt convinced that State affairs concerned every body in
the State, so State policies should be controlled by the general body of citizens.

Not only in his political views, but in the economic sphere also, his views were more advanced. He
accepted the principles of free enterprise and the maintenance of private property and regarded
them as essential for economic progress. But Mill held that though the production of wealth was
determined by natural laws, die distribution of wealth was wholly dependent on social factors and
so it was the concern of society to control it. Mill repudiated the wage-fund theory also and came to
consider Trade Unions to be a rightful means of bettering the lot of the working classes. As a natural
consequence of the modifications of his views, Mill declared that the interference of the State was
essential for the advancement of the people.

Thus Mill saw that political democracy without an economic system based on egalitarian ideas was
incomplete. He visualized a future in which the struggle would be between the haves and the have-
nots. The workers would question the rights of property. They would not submit to the acci

I Mill’s “Representative Government”, pp. 311-312.

dents of birth. These views led Mill to Socialistic ideas, but Mill’s socialism is of a peculiar nature.
There is no reference to Marxism in his theory. no conflict between the Bourgeoisie and the
Proletariat, and no exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. He was convinced that the
distribution of wealth was the concern of society and not of any natural economic laws. So this
function can be better discharged by a cooperative society. Cooperative associations based on
‘terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on operations and working
under managers elected and removable by themselves” would bring about a workable equality in
society. Mlil held that such cooperative associations would compete successfully with concerns
organised on a capitalistic basis and with greater success. They could in due course supplant the
capitalistic organisation. This will help society to pass on to cooperative basis from a competitive
basis.

To minimise economic inequalities, Mill suggested other methods, such as imposing limitations on
the right of inhrritancc. In his opinion, the landlord was enriched by the natural course of things
without exerting himself. This unearned income of the landlord must he confiscated by the State.
Mill’s respect for the principle of private property did not permit him to suggest any radical change
in the land system: he contented himself only with the suggestion of imposing a special tax on the
unearned increment of the landlord’s income. He advocated other reforms, viz., the abolition of
prigomeniture, nationalisation of idle land, establishment of peasant proprietorship and socialization
of land through cooperative societies.

16
Mill felt that intellectual freedom was imperative for the uplift of society. In his most celebrated
book, ‘On Liberty’, he advocated freedom of thought as a condition precedent for political and social
progress. It is claimed for

Mill, “Principles”, 773.

this book that “all Mill’s best qualities of mind and heart, all that was best in the life of the fairest
flower of English Liberalism went into the writing of ‘On Liberty’ “.’ He regarded the tyranny of
public opinion as galling as the tyranny of the majority, saw no point in imposing restrictions even on
the expression of wrong opinions since the expression of wrong opinion initiates discussion which
serves to clarify the right opinions. Mill felt that new ideas came from minorities and individuals. So
it is essential for the growth of new ideas that there should be an atmosphere of freedom. He
thought that conflict of opinions would lead to the emergence of certain universally accepted ideas,
these in turn would import solidarity to society. If, on the other hand, an attempt were made to
bolster up the ideas of only one section of society by the suppression of contrary opinions, that
stability would be ‘petrified’.

So Mill strongly advocated freedom of opinion, but he imposed certain limitations also upon it. If
such an expression leods to violence, it should be checked. .Agitation is justifiable till it serves to
make the government of the time realize that the time is ripe for needed reforms. Hence the object
of the freedom of opinion was at once “to raise the waves and to calm them”.2

Thus “it would not be too much to say that Mill’s was the most potent intellectual influence that
prepared the way for the advent of democratic Liberalism in England, with its wide extensions of the
suffrage. with its establishment of popular education, with its emancipation of the trade unions and
with its manysided social reforms.”‘

‘Schapiro: “Liberalism & the Challenge of Fascism”, Mc Craw Hill, London. 1919, p. 280.

2 Quoted by F. A. Von Hayek in his Introduction to J. S. Mill: “The Spirit of the Age” (University of
Chicago Press, 1942), XXXXXXII.

3 Schapiro: “Liberalism and Challenge of Fascism”, pp. 287-88.

Herbert Spencer:

Another philosopher of eminence who reinforced the Liberal movement in the 3rd and 4th quarters
of the 19th century was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). His political ideas are mainly contained in his
‘Social Statics’ (1850) and ‘The Man versus the State’ (1884).

In his ‘Social Statics’, he elaborated his views of the government as ‘an agency of Social equilibrium
and emphasized its duty to protect and sustain the social state’. He thus invested the Liberal
doctrine with a scientific rationale. Spencer condemned State interference in trade, commerce,
education, poor-relief, etc., and in his ‘Man versus the State’ dwells at length on ‘The Sins of
Legislators’. He said that “the great political superstition of the past was the divine right of Kings. The
great political superstition of the present is the divine right of Parliaments.”‘ Spencer deduced
individualism from his analogy between a physical organism and a social organism and rejected the
popular view that social habits could be reformed by legislative fiat. His chief contribution to

17
contemporary Liberalism was that he employed the idea of evolution to reconstruct the system of a
natural society. Thus he broke down the insularity of the earlier Liberalism and supplied the sanction
of science to the Liberal concept of society and state.

Thomas Hill Green: During the two closing decades of the 19th century Thomas Hill Green of the
Oxford Idealist School and Josiah Royace of the U.S.A. further revised the Liberal theory. What Green
understood by Liberalism is discoverable from his address delivered in 1880 on “Liberal Legislation
and Freedom of Contract”. The occasion of the lecture was Gladstone’s proposal to regulate
contracts between the tenants and the landlords of Ireland. This question involved a basic Liberal
principle, that of freedom of contract. Gladstone’s proposal meant to abridge that

1 “The Man versus the State” (Revised Ed., 1897), p. 377. F. 4

liberty. Could these ideas be reconciled? To Green, Liberty does not mean simply absence of legal
restraint. It is a ‘positive power or capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying’.
So freedom must afford opportunities to the individual to share increasingly in the goods which
society has produced and to develop his personality to contribute to the common good. Freedom of
contract is simply a means to this end, i.e., the fullest development of the natural endowments of
the individual. But mere freedom of contract cannot bring about this result. Although the two
contracting parties may be free to bargain, yet it is not possible for the weaker party to have a just
bargain. Can there be a free contract between a tenant and a landlord in Ireland differing so greatly
in their social status? Under such circumstances the legal restriction imposed by the State is much
lighter than the coercion of a landlord or an employer. In society there is abundance of such
contracts which arc harmful to the poor. There is nothing liberal in this policy if the State lays down a
law to stamp out this high-handedness.

In brief, Green’s view is that in the past Liberal theory was not a consistent whole and its object was
only to repeal obsolete legislation. Liberalism could not afford to remain circumscribed if it was to
prove the truth of its principles. It is to respond to new situations freely. Liberal policy is to be guided
by a moral purpose. In his opinion the central idea of Liberal philosophy is the general good or
common well-being which can be shared by every one. Freedom is both an individual and social
concept. The function of a Liberal government is to help set up a free society composed of members
of equal standard of morality and sense of responsibility and though it may not be possible to make
men moral it may at least ‘hinder the hindrances’ which induce them to immorality and should try to
create a social milieu in which it is possible for an individual to develop a responsible moral
character for himself. For example, the government must make a provision for the education of
children. So Green’s restatement of the Liberal theory implied that if the State could by interference
contribute to positive freedom of society, could do something better for the general welfare without
creating worse evils than it sought to remove, it must not hesitate. Thus, in the realm of economics
he thought the State could interfere because a free market was a social institution and not a natural
condition and legislation might be necessary for the maintenance of its freedom.

Green’s Liberalism was not incompatible in many ways with the ideas of the Fabian Society
established in 1884. Both Green and the Fabians realised that the contemporary situation in Great
Britain necessitated State interference to purge society of its evils. In the Fabian Essays (1889) Sidney
Webb asserted that “the economic side of the democratic idea is, in fact, socialism itself”‘ and
Sydney Oliver said that “Socialism is merely individualism rationalised; its morality is only the

18
expression of the eternal passion of life seeking its expression through the striving of each individual
for the freest and fullest activity.”2 Fabian socialism is, in brief, Green’s positive freedom writ large.
Both Green and the Fabians felt convinced that liberty without security was moonshine and as such
the State was to insist on the acquisition of both. In keeping with this ideal we find in Sydney Webb’s
“Labour and New Social Order” (1918) the insistence on the national minima—of leisure, health,
education and subsistence. In 1942, even the executive of the Liberal Party declared its belief that a
planned society can be a far more free society than a competitive one, because it can “offer those
who work in it the sense, on the one hand, of continu

1 Green quoted by Sabine in “A History of Political Theory”,

1951 p. 610.

2 Quoted by Sabine in ‘A History of Political Theory’, p. 619.

ous opportunity for the expression of capacity, and the power, on the other, to share fully in the
making of the rules under which they work”.1

Today Liberalism admits of two definitions. The Marxian and the Fascist understand it to mean the
social philosophy of the industrial middle class or the doctrines of laissez faire and economic
imperialism. To a democrat, it means the fruition of art age-long western political tradition, and ‘the
secular form of western civilization:2 Both the interpretations are correct so far as they go. The
Fascist view of Liberalism is applicable to the first three-quarters of the 19th century. During this
period, the Liberal theory was largely subservient to the interests of the bourgeoisie class and it
regarded the interference of the State as harmful. The Liberal economists consciously or
unconsciously identified class interests with total social interests and did not take cognizance of the
effect of the new industrial technology.’ Historically speaking it was temporary phase. This phase
may be said to have ended with John Stuart Mill because after him, except Spencer, no body else
could be described as a believer in the laissez faire doctrine.

The Liberal movement broadened to newer horizons firstly, because of a stout reaction against
laissez faire and, secondly, because of the tremendous influence exercised by the trade unions.
Political Liberalism had to chose between the role of a conciliator or getting out of the picture. It had
to adopt more sympathetic and humane ideals of the relations between one class and another and
to mitigate the evils of unregulated industrialism. Faced with the challenge, the historical continuity
of Liberal thought did not break.

Quoted by Sabine: “A History of Political Theory”, p. 620.

2 See Fredrick M. Watkin’s ‘The Political Tradition of the West’, 1948.

See Karl Mannheim; The Crisis in Valuation’ in Diagnosis of Our Time (1944).

Even when Liberalism was a middle class philosophy it claimed to stand for the greatest social good
and except in its theory of distribution it had no idea of antagonistic social classes. The latter day
Liberals simply corrected and enlarged the concepts of early Liberals; they did not reverse them.

From Bentham to the present day, both in theory and in practice, Liberalism has believed that
general welfare or public good ought to be the chief motive in politics and on th;s there should be no

19
difference of opinion between one party and another. This does not mean that there need be no
parties or distinctive class interests, but that the primary function of a Liberal government is to iron
out their differ ences and to protect all interests by discussion and compromise. All parties in a
Liberal society try to work by compromise and thus all interests are conciliated.

There were two basic implications of its political theory:—firstly, the government was to function
within legal and constitutional limits and, secondly, the widest possible field was to be left to
individual enterprise and free activity. There can be neither dictation and arbitrary enforcement of
laws nor any scheme of universal regimentation under a Liberal regime.

Further a Liberal system implies not only a community imbued with a sense of common good but
also one which permits within its range lesser associations, such as the church, trade unions, etc., to
function freely and to enjoy a fair measure of autonomy within the framework of the legal rights and
duties imposed by the State in the general interest of the whole community. So far as the individual
citizen is concerned, it predicates certain qualities of character, such as intellectual integrity, love of
freedom, willingness to compromise on non-essentials and trust in government by discussion and
common consent.

20
CHAPTER II: THE GENESIS OF INDIAN LIBERALISM
Raja Rum Mohan Roy & the Pioneers
As the brief summary of its evolution given in the foregoing chapter would indicate, modern
Liberalism achieved maturity of thought and activity in the West mainly in the 125 years between
1789 and 1914. This is also the period during which British Rule in India expanded from a few
seaboard settlements to the whole of the sub-continent. Further, beginning with Pitt’s India Act of
1784 down to the Government of India Act, 1919, most of the great measures concerned with
changes in the governance of India during this period arc connected, directly or indirectly, with Whig
or Liberal and, later, Labour criticism of the Government of India. We shall not, therefore, be wrong
in hazarding the view that even in the matter of the structure of its government during this period,
India was subjected to strong Liberal influences on account of its association with Great Britain.
Simultaneously, the introduction of Western learning and the English language in our system of
education, diverse social and administrative reforms introduced by the Government, and the
increasing contact with the more advanced economic and political thought of the West summarised
in the previous chapter, created favourable conditions for the rise of an indigenous school of Liberal
thinkers and politicians in India. The influence of these ideas can be clearly discerned in the
successive phases of liberal thought and activity in India during the 19th century. We shall,
therefore, now attempt to trace the rise and evolution of this school of thinkers and publicists in
India in this chapter.

A recent writer has said that “as the history of Western political thought begins with the name of
Aristotle, so the history of political thought in modern India begins with the revered name of Raja
Ram Mohan Roy.’’’ He was the pro-duct of all that was the best in the Hindu, the Muslim and the
English cultures. He was the progenitor of the modern social reform movement, and the pioneer of
several other public movements, which bore the promise of national regeneration for India. “No one
has a juster right to be called the prophet of an era than the Raja of the present epoch in India.”2 “It
is as the first, and perhaps the greatest apostle of the Indian Renaissance that Raja Ram Mohan Roy
stands pre-eminent among the Indians of the 19th Century.”‘

A recurrent trend towards Liberalism in religion and society may, of course, be dated in India from
the age of the Upanishads and Buddhism. With the advent of the Muslims, Hinduism had to meet
the impact of a dynamic religion of foreign origin, “which challenged its (Hinduism’s) philosophic
basis, attacked its social structure and denied its pantheistic doctrines.”4 Despite all this, however,
Hinduism absorbed the best that Islam had to give and in the shape of Kabir Panth and Sikhism
attempted to evolve a synthesis of the two faiths without jettisonning the basic beliefs of Hinduism.
The new spirit poured itself out in the deathless songs of saint poets like Kabir, Nanak and Namdev
all of whom repudiated most of the historical accumulation of restrictive social customs and
differentiations. The momentum of this movement increased with the passage of time and the 15th
and the 16th centuries witnessed several new Reformation movements in both the communities. It
has been said aptly that Akbar was not only the child of his

1 Majumdar: “History of Political Thought”, University of Cal. 1934, p. 1.

2 Editor of “Life & Letters of R. R. Mohan Roy” by Sophia Dobson Collet in his introduction, p.

3 Manohar Lal Zutshi: “Asian Protestantism”, p. 136.

21
4 Pannikar: “A Survey of Indian History”, p. 178.

century, he was its best replica”. Sikhism and Akbar’s Din Ilahi were the best fruits of the religious
thinking of the period.

These facts amply show that in the field of religion and society, a Liberal tendency was always active
in India in a greater or lesser degree. Political Liberalism, as we now understand the term, was,
however, almost non-existent. The well-known treatises on Politics and Lavi of the Hindu period
essentially deal more with the art of politics than with its ‘science’. No real speculative political
philosophy of any kind is, as a matter of fact, possible in a society which holds that the State based
on monarchy was a divine dispensation. Politics in such an environment becomes more or less an
“intrigue” for office or power.

So Political Liberalism of the Western brand arose only in the British period and was inaugurated in
India by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. The Raja may be said to have lived and worked in a disintegrating
society. After the liquidation of the Mughal Empire, centrifugal tendencies asserted themselves and
powerful potentates established independent principalities. The English East India Company also
engaged in a strenuous scramble for power.

There was a feeling of frustration abroad in the country. In the prevailing insecurity of life and
property, the morale of Indian society was at its lowest. In the middle ages, Hindu society had
retired within its shell of beliefs, customs and practices to meet the challenge of Islam. Any
tampering with these beliefs and customs was to weaken the community. Orthodoxy in these
matters was the only path of social security and survival. So, innovation was discouraged and
punished by social and religious ostracism. Orthodoxy coupled with illiteracy, insecurity and poverty
gave rise to many social evils. One of the worst of these evils was the horrid custom of Sati. Other
contemporary social evils, like

1 J. I. H., 1930, p. 307.

infanticide, enforced widowhood, child Marriage, untouchability, purdah, the devdasi system, and
prohibition of sea-voyage also called for the immediate attention of the social reformer.

These conditions determined the main lines of activity of any Indian at the beginning of the 19th
century who might have been desirous of working for the regeneration of his people. The ‘Pax
Brittanica’ would appear to him as a blessing, so that no purely political movement could possibly
arise in the circumstances. Social and religious reform of Indian society that would enable it to face
criticism of the Christian missionaries and the challenge of the dominant, West would appear to him
to be urgently needed. These were accordingly the major interests of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and his
friends to begin with.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy:’ Ram Mohan Roy was born in May. 1772 of orthodox Brahmin parents. As a
child he studied Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian as was the custom of the day and became proficient in
these languages. Fascinated by Islamic monotheism, he wrote his first tract, the Tuhfutul Muwahidin
(A Gift of the Monotheists) in Persian, and revolted against Hindu idolatry. He had even to leave the
ancestral home in consequence of his heterodoxy, and pass nearly four years in Tibet during which
he studied Tibetan Buddhism with the lamas. Thereafter, he settled down at Banaras to study
Sanskrit. He entered the Company’s service as a Revenue Officer in 1804, and here he continued his

22
religious studies in Tantrik, Jain and Vedant texts, and further acquired’ a considerable knowledge of
English through his association with Mr. Digby, the Collector of Rangpur.

In 1814, he retired from Government service and resolved to devote himself to the work of national
regeneration.

For the Raja’s early career, see his ‘Autobiographical Sketch’ given in S. D. Collet’s ‘Life & Letters of
Raja Ram Mohan Roy’ (p. 249), Mary Carpenter’s ‘The Last Days in England of the Raja Ram Mohan
Roy’ (p. 3).

He settled down at Calcutta. From 1814 to 1830 when he left for England, the Raja inaugurated
various movements which may be said to have constituted the whole of national public activity at
the time. He addressed himself to a fourfold task:—to purge. purify and re-evaluate the national
heritage, to infuse a new spirit in the country and to use these awakened energies for national
reconstruction,’

The Raja & Religious Reform: The Raja’s cultural background was thus one of a cosmopolitan
character. His wide and close study of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity made it inevitable
that his primary interests shoud lie in the sphere of religion. We have, however, plenty of evidence
from his own writings that his religion was not a mere quest for personal salvation, but a basic
conviction of the integrity of life and living, and he conceived it as the matrix from which the people
draw the energy, the vitality and the idealism required for collective and individual well-being and
progress. The present system of reli’ gion”, wrote the Raja in 1828, “is not well calculated to
promote their (Hindu’s) political interests. The distinctions of caste, introducing innumerable
divisions and sub-divisions among them. have entirely deprived them of political feeling, and the
multitude of religious rites and ceremonies and the laws of purification have totally disqualified
them for undertaking any difficult enterprise. It is, I think, necessary that some changes should take
place in their religion at least for the sake of their political advantage and social comfort.”‘ The one
sovereign passion of his life ,was thus for “reinstating a living liberal faith amidst clogging symbolism
and ennervating superstition”.3

1 Presidential Address by Mr. R. Venkat Ratnan at Calcutta Theistic Conference of 1906.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy—English Works (Panini Office 3. Allahabad), p. 929.

3 Presidential Address by R. Venkat Ratnan—Theistic Conference (1906).

THE GENESIS OF INDIAN LIBERALISM 35

The Raja published, between 1815 and 1819, his “Abridgement of the Vedanta” and his translations
of the Isha, Katha and Mandukya ,Upanishads. He trusted that these translations would convince
everybody that the Vedas “repeatedly urge the relinquishment of rites of idol-worship”.’ He
expected that such a conviction would emancipate the people from Idol-worship which was “the
source of prejudice and superstition and the total destruction of moral principles, as countenancing
criminal intercourse, suicide, female murder and human sacrifice”.2 These translations were made in
the vernacular to explain to the people the rational basis of the Hindu religion and the unity of the
Godhead as well as to correct the erroneous notions of foreign and native translators of Hindu
scriptures.

23
It is clear that the Raja’s first great service to his mother-land was to attempt to restore its hoary
faith to its pristine purity so that national self-esteem might be built up on a solid basis and the
people rescued from superstition and obscurantism. His religious activities were throughout inspired
by deep national feeling and a liberal outlook.

In 1820, he published his “Precepts of Jesus”, because he thought that they taught ‘love to God’ who
is One and Indivisible in person’. These studies convinced him that the basis of all the great world
religions was a belief in the Oneness of God. On this bed-rock, he established his Brahmo Samaj in
1828.3

The Brahmo Samaj ensured the Raja’s place in history more securely than his other activities even
though it never became popular with the masses and shared the same fate as other eclectic cults,
such as Akbar’s Din-i-Ilahi and Le-Revellure Lepaux’s ‘Theo-Philanthropy. Yet the social significance
of the Samaj can be scarcely overrated. Most of the

The Enlish Works—Part II—Introduction, p. 1.

2 Ibid., p. I.

3 For further discussion about the Samaj see Chapter III.

early Liberal leaders belonged to Bengal and Andews has said that “this has been due in no small
measure to the work of the Brahmo Samaj”.’ ‘It popularised social reform, it prevented conversion
to Christianity by creating a half-way house and roused the orthodox Hindus to organise themselves.
. .crudely at first but with greater discrimination and knowledge afterwards.’ 2 The political
significance of the Bralimo Samaj was thus indubitable. It worked as a lever of Liberal thought in
19th century India; it represented a commingling of Eastern and Western thought, which fertilised
by logical necessity all contemporary social and political activity; it trained our early leaders in
corporate activity and it became the central laboratory of all social reform in the country. It
nourished the nationalist sentiment and paved the way for the later demand for political reforms
also.

The Raja and the Promotion of English Education: Another great contribution of the Raja to the
growth of Liberalism in India was his work for the promotion of English Education. Perhaps no other
factor has contributed as much to the development of Liberal thought in the country as the diffusion
of Western science and learning through the new English Schools and Colleges. When the Raja began
his public work, there was no organised system for teaching English to Indians in the country. The
first English-knowing Indian in Bengal is said to have been a ‘dhobi’ who picked up the language
through his contact with English merchants, and seems to have made profitable use of his
monopoly.” The establishment of the Supreme Court at Calcutta further increased the need for a
knowledge of English on the part of the people. One of the Company’s civil servants, Charles

1*The Renaissance in India’ by C. F. Andrews (Madras), 1915, p. 80.

2 ‘The Renaissance of Hinduism’ by D. S. Sharma, p. 116.

3 ‘An English-Bengali Dictionary’ by Radha Karnal Sen—Introduction.

24
Grant, tried to persuade the Directors to cover the country with a network of English schools, but he
failed to achieve this objective.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy now entered the field firmly holding that, if the object of the Government was
to improve the ‘native’ population, “a more liberal and enlightened system of instruction” than the
indigenous one, which only ‘loaded the minds of youth with grammatical niceties and metaphysical
distinctions of little or no practical use’, should be provided “embracing mathematics, natural
philosophy, chemistry and anatomy with other useful sciences”.1 The occasion was provided by the
earmarking of rupees one lakh for the promotion of education in India by the Charter Act of 1813. A
controversy now arose (over the question of how this money was to be used) between the
‘Orientalists’ and the ‘Anglicists’ until Macaulay’s minute of Feb. 2, 1835 and Bentinck’s resolution of
March 7, 1835 set it at rest.

The Raja had, however, already succeeded in enlisting the help of David Hare and the then Chief
Justice of Bengal, Sir Hyde East, for starting the Hindu College (later renamed as the Presidency
College) in 1817 even though many Hindus refused to have anything to do with the scheme if the
Raja was one of its sponsors.2 The Raja gladly withdrew his name from the proposed committee of
sponsors as he was more interested in the cause than in the manner in which it was served and the
incident left him as zealous as ever about it. This college, as is well-known, was the nursery of the
future Liberal leaders of Bengal, such as Tara Chandra Chakravarti, Dakshinaraj Mukhopadhyaya,
Ram Gopal Ghosh, Pearey Chand Mitra, Rasik Krishna Mullick, etc., upon whom devolved the task of
bearing the torch of Liberalism in the country after the death of the Raja.

1 A Petition to Lord Amherst—English Works, Vol. IV, pp. 33-35.

2 S. N. Banerji, Death Anniversary speech—Sep., 27, 1904.

In 1822, the Raja set up another school, mostly financed by himself, to give instruction in the English
language.’ By 1827, about 60 to 80 Hindu boys were receiving instruction in this school. Later, the
Raja tried to interest foreign missions in this work, and the Church of Scotland sent Alexander Duff
to India in 1830. Duff’s biographer states how the Raja placed the old 1%rahrno Samaj building at
Duff’s disposal when the latter could not secure a hall for his school, and also persuaded the boys to
read the Bible which they had previously refused even to touch!

The Raja’s petition to Lord Amherst urging the foundation of English schools, referred to above,
provides the keynote to his zealous crusade for the new education. Undeterred by suspicion and
calumny, he went on his way enlisting the help of personal friends. Christian missionaries and
Government in this task because he believed that instruction in Western Sciences would contribute
to social progress and national advancement. It is true that this emphasis on English schools led, for
a long time to conic, to the neglect of education through the mother-tongue. But there can be no
doubt that the Raja’s work in this field helped to establish the traditional emphasis on the promotion
of modern education which was so characteristic a plank in the Liberal programme of later times.
Further, it is interesting to note that the Raja anticipated Macaulay in the condemnation of the
ancient system of instruction in the country.

The Raja & Social Reform: ‘Ile Raja’s work in the sphere of social reform is well-known, and entitles
him to be ranked as the foremost social reformer of modern times in India. Here also he blazed a

25
trail which Indian Liberals were to follow consistently in later times. He was always conscious that
social evils were no less harmful to the well-being of a country than political subjection. Both tend to
dwarf the mind and destroy initiative. If the full potentialities of

S. D. Collet: ‘Life & Letters’, p. 106.

a nation are to develop, social freedom is as important as political liberty. The Raja was firmly
persuaded that the main ills of India arose out of the twin evils of the unhappy position of women in
Indian society and the caste system.

His name is principally associated with the abolition of the custom of Sati in India. Collet has
graphically des-cribed the incident of the forced burning of his elder brother’s widow in 1811 by the
Raja’s relations.’ The event filled Ram Mohan Roy with unspeakable indignation and pity, and he
vowed that ‘he would never rest until the atrocious custom was rooted out’. Eventually he fulfilled
the sacred pledge in full measure. Sati was an ancient evil, and still persisted despite sporadic
discouragement by previous rulers of the land. The Company’s Government also disapproved of it,
but not until public opinion in Bengal stirred itself to condemn it, did they take any active steps to
stop it. Government Regulations of April, 1813, Jan., 1815 and June. 1817 imposed many restrictions
on the practice but statistics show that, despite these laws, the burning of widows increased from
375 in 1815 to 839 in 1818.2 The reasons that contemporary Anglo-Indian opinion gave for this
increase was ‘the profligacy and immorality of the natives of Calcutta’ and ‘the Government’s lack of
courage in overcoming the injunctions of Hindu Shastras’.3

It is obvious that the abolition of Safi required:

(i) the building up of public opinion against it;

(ii). collection of Shastric injections to counteract the arguments of the advocates of the system; and,

(iii) the encouragement of the Government to legis-late against it.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy undertook this triple task in a spirit of missionary zeal. He visited cremation

I Collet: ‘Life & Letters’, p. 22. Also ‘Life of N. N. Chatterji’ (Calcutta, 1880).

2 Collect: p. 46.

3 lbid, ‘Reports of Oakely’ a Hugli Magistrate, pp. 46-47.

ghats to dissuade people from countenancing or abetting Sati. He began to collect authority from
the Shastras against it to confound the priests and the orthodox defenders of the practice. His work
in these directions greatly strengthened the hands of the Government, and eventually succeeded in
converting Anglo-Indian opinion to the need and the justification for the reform “and was important
because the Company’s Government would do nothing unless it was sponsored by Anglo-India”.’ He
issued two pamphlets in English for the purpose, dedicating one of them entitled a “Conference
between an advocate for and an opponent of the practice of Burning Widows Alive.” to Lady
Hastings.

26
The foregoing brief recital and summary of the Raja’s social views and activities arc perhaps sullicent
to indicate that he may be counted safely as the creator of that tradition for promoting social
reform, uplift of Indian women, and spread of modern education which were some of the principal
activities of Indian Liberals in subsequent years.

The Raja S Administrative Reforms: In the field of administrative reforms also, Ram Mohan Roy
indicated the line of advance and anticipated the future Liberal Party in some of its important
political activities.

The Raja drafted petitions against the new Jury Act of 1827 and sent them to Mr. J. Crawford for
being presented to both the Houses of Parliament. The grounds of his opposition to it were that by
this measure Mr. Wynn, the late President of the Board of Control, had introduced religious
distinctions into the judicial system of the country. The Raja held that this “not only afforded just
grounds for dissatisfaction among the ‘natives’ in general. but had excited much alarm in the breast
of everyone conversant with political principles”. “Any Native, either Hindu or Mohemmedan, is
rendered by this Bill subject to judicial trial by Christians either

English Works, III, p. 88.

European or Native, while Christians, including native con-verts, are exempted from the degradation
of being tried either by a Hindu or Muslim Juror however high he may stand in the estimation of
society. This Bill also denies both to Hindus and Musalmans the honour of a seat in the Grand Jury
even in the trial of fellow Hindus or Musal-mans”.’ The petition sounds very much like the later
controversy over the Ilbert Bill. It can be looked upon also as marking the beginning of constitutional
agitation for political reforms which was to be the chief characteristic of the Liberal Party’s activities
both in England and India. Indeed, the Raja’s numerous representations to Government, like the
Memorial to the Supreme Court and appeal to the King in Council for rescinding press restrictions
and others referred to above, all created precedents for the constitutional method of political
agitation. The Raja may also he credited with inaugurating the first ventures in Indian Journalism in
the Indian languages, of which we shall speak in Appendix I of the this work later. This is why he may
be rightly hailed as the father of the Indian Liberal Party.

The Raja in England: A good part of the Raja’s po-litical work was to be accomplished in England. His
brief stay in England witnessed the crowning glory of his fifty years’ service to his motherland. He
went there to gain two objects: to obtain by personal observation a more thorough insight into the
manners, customs and religious and political institutions of England, and secondly, to seek for British
assistance in his endeavours to regenerate his motherland. In addition to these objects the Raja’s
voyage produced certain indirect consequences. He was the first Brahman to have crossed the ocean
and thereby dissolved one more social prejudice and set an example for his educated countrymen to
visit Europe. Yet another importance of

Raja’s letter to Mr. Crawford on August 18, 1828; Collet: pp. 153-154.

his visit to England was that he dispelled thereby the fantastic notions held by the English people
about India. As his English biographer puts it, “Ram Mohan Roy’s presence in this country made the
English people aware of the dignity, the culture, and the piety of the race they had conquered”.’
Wherever he went, “continues the writer,” there went a stately refutation of the Anglo-India’s

27
insolence which saw in an Indian fellow-subject only a “blackman” or a “Nigger “.2 As he had
interpreted England to India, so now he interpreted India to England.” Miss Carpenter gives a vivid
picture of the Raja’s visit to England.’

This was yet another conspicuous precedent set by the Raja to the leaders of the future Liberal Party
to go abroad and study English institutions in actual operation, to contact Englishmen of influence
and impress upon them the need for administrative reforms in India, and to contact personal
friendship with leading men of the British Liberal Party and other people of advanced views and thus
build up British support for the political progress of their country. Dadabltai Naoroji, Gokhale, Lajpat
Rai, Surendranath Bannerjee, Srinivas Sastri, Tej Bahadur Sapru. etc., all were to follow in the
footsteps of the Raja in these directions.

The Raja’s Views on the Judicial System: While in England, the Raja found an opportunity to present
his views on the system of Judicial administration in India before the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Indian Affairs appointed in connection with the revision of the Company’s charter.
These views are contained in his notes submitted to the Continittee,5 and provide a comprehensive
and acute criticism of the Anglo-Indian Judicial system of the day. The Raja pointed out therein that
it was very defective due to (a)

1Collect: ‘Life Ss: Letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy’, p. 174. 211)1(1, p. 175.

3 !bid, p. 175.

4 See ‘Last Days of Raja Ram Mohan Roy’ by Carpenter, p. 57.

6 See the English Works, Part III, p. 11, et seq.

the paucity as well as the poor qualifications of Judges and Magistrates, (b) the use of foreign
languages in the courts and (c) the want of a proper code of laws. The distance of Courts, the wide
racial gulf between the European Judges and the Indian bar, the absence of publicity and the
prevalence of perjury and forgery were further impediments to the fair administration of justice.’

The Raja’s suggestions for the removal of these defects foreshadowed the bulk of the later demands
of the Indian Liberals in regard to the reform of the Indian Judicial system. He suggested:2

(a) the employment of ‘native’ assessors of not less than 5 years’ standing as Muftics, Zillah
Court Maulvis or Indian Officers in the Courts, for life and during good behaviour on a salary of Rs.
300/-, 400/- p.m.

(b) the employment of the Jury in trials—by remodelling the old Panchayats3—the Jurors were
to be selected from among respectable Indians by lot, and where the Judge and the jury agreed, no
appeal was to lie from their unanimous decision.4

(c) the grant of power to issue writs of Habeas Corpus to the Sudder Dewany Adawlut to
protect citizens against unlawful custody and imprisonment. As a further safeguard, he suggested
that the Judges of Circuit and the assistant judges should have power to supervise and investigate
complaints against magistrates and the police and to check misuse of their powers.5

28
(d) the abandonment of the practice of appointing civil servants to judicial posts unless they
could produce satisfactory proof of adequate knowledge of English Law.

I See the English Works, Part III, pp. 13-11.

2 Ibid, p. 17.

3 Ibid, p. 22.

4 Ibid, p. 24.

6 Ibid, p. 32.

(e) the creation of a Specific Court of Appeal in India to deal with Indian appeals of over £
10,000 in value to avoid the expense and delay in appeals to the King in Council.’

(f) the gradual appointment of ‘natives’ to places of authority and trust in the Judicial service.2

(g) the condification of Civil and Criminal laws with the help of Indian expounders of the law to
make reference to Hindu and • Mohammedan laws easier.’

The Raja opposed the union of magisterial and judicial functions with the office of the Collector as
opposed to reason as well as even to Muslim administrative tradition.4 He opposed the practice of
issuing ordinances by the Governor-General or other Civil Servants.5

It is, however, curious that in two respects the Raja’s views strike a note discordant with the liberal
demands in later times. He advocated the substitution of the English language in the Courts in place
of Persian because he felt that the change would promote the study of English.” Fur-ther, the Raja
was opposed to the creation of a legislative Council in India as the chief law-making authority for In-
dia.’ He believed in the Benthamite principle that law is the command of sovereign authority—
which, in India’s case, could only be the British Parliament and not the Governor-General. He also
felt that no local authority could be entirely impartial, and he was also opposed to the combination
of executive and legislative powers in the same authority.

But there is no indication that he wanted. to exchange

I See English Works, Part 111, p. 1.

2 lbid, pp. 37-38.

3 !bid, Part III, p. 35.

4 Ibid, pp. 24-25.

5 English Works, Part 1V, p. 28.

6 English Works, Part Ill, p. 14.

7 See Minutes of Evidence before the Select Committee on the East Indian Company, Vol. 1--Public,
p. 615.

29
the East India Company’s rule for a colonial form of Govern-ment) He knew, of course, that in all
matters connected with the colonies, the Minister was absolute and the majority of the House of
Commons subservient, there being no body of persons who had adequate motives to serve as a
check on the Government in regard to distant dependencies of the British Crown.. The change
proposed was, therefore, in his estimation, a change from a subordinate authority, as the East India
Company’s Government was, functioning under a variety of efficient checks on any abuse of its
power, to an absolute despotism.2

A glance at these views of the Raja provides further justification for his being called the harbinger of
Liberalism in Modern India. The separation of Judicial and Executive functions, revival and
remodelling of the Panchayat system, the introduction of the Jury system, speedy and cheap justice,
eradication of corruption, wider employment of Indians in the judicial services in order to reduce
expenditure on administration, all figured most prominently on the political programme of the later
Liberals. In his elaborate exposition of the judicial administration and in his mild but fully reasoned
criticism of the Government policy in general, and in his admiration of British character but
castigation of the faults of the British administration of India, we hear an echo of the voices of the
silver-tongued orators of the future Liberal Party of India. The liberal spirit which is embodied in the
Raja’s papers was to become only more distinct and vocal in the years to come in the demands of
the Liberal Congress and the Liberal Party.

The Raja’s Economic Ideas: The Raja’s papers and writings include many documents containing his
views on the economic problems of the day. They show that the

1 An article on the Raja by Arnot in Asiatic Journal of Sept., Dec., 1833.

2 An article on the Raja by Arnot in Asiatic Journal of Ibid.

Raja was neither a doctrinaire nor a visionary in his economic ideas. He dealt with the land problems
of the day more elaborately than with questions relating to trade and commerce. The former came
directly under his observation, and were also referred to him for his opinion. Land revenue
administration was also one of the chief pre-occupations of the Government at the time.

The Raja was a firm believer in the institution of individual property, and favoured the Permanent
Settlement. But he regretted the Government’s failure to confer rights in the soil on the cultivators’
which might have attached them to the Government.2 He held that three parties had rights in the
soil: firstly, the ryots—to cultivate the land and receive one-half of the produce in return for the
seed and their labour; secondly, the Government in return for its general protection to receive the
other half with the exception of 1/10 or 1/11; and thirdly, the Zamindars who were to receive this
1/10 or 1/11 for the local protection which they provided. He held that the Government had
sacrificed nothing in making the Permanent Settlement2 but had, on the other hand, gained
enormously by appropriating to itself the transit duties.’ He knew also that the Zamindars had
gained by the great increase in the value of the land since the Settlement of 1793 owing to extension
of cultivation and increase of their rentals,5 but he felt that the cultivators were the greatest
sufferers thereby as they were granted no rights in the soil and were placed at the mercy of the
Zamindar’s avarice and ambitions.” They had no means of accumulating any capital under the
system.’ He preferred the Zamindari

30
I Eng. Works, Part III, p. 41.

2 Ibid, p. 71. 8 Ibid, p. 47. 4 Ibid, p. 56. lbid, p. 55. Ibid, p. 47. 7 Ibid, p. 49.

system to the Ryotwari maily because the former seemed to be favourable to the enhancement of
the public revenue.’ But he pointed out that under both systems, the condition of the cultivators
was very miserable.2

So, the Raja deprecated any further increase in the land revenue, and asked for judicial protection of
the cultivators against the Zamindar, and general reduction of rent and the land revenue demand.3
To meet the likely deficit in revenue, he suggested more employment of Indians in place of European
Collectors’ and even the organisation of a national militial3 He was acutely conscious of the poverty
of the peasants and other classes of workers, and of their ignorance and their backwardness.

One very interesting proposal of the Raja before the Select Committee of 1832 was the introduction
of a system to en-courage Europeans with capital to become permanent settlers in India.`’ It is a
curious document.? Here we are concerned with one aspect of it, viz.—the compatibility of these
Views with his liberal ideology. The Raja held that the European settlers in this country would
introduce the knowledge of superior modes of cultivation, and improve its products. Their presence
would emancipate Indians from superstition and pre. judice. They would be able to obtain from the
Government the introduction of many necessary improvements. European settlers might he able to
afford to the natives protection against imposition and oppression and also against the abuse of
power on the part of those in authority. As permanent residents,

I English Works, Part III—App. No. 1, p. 70 and pp. 73-77. The land revenue in Bengal increased by
101.71 p. c. between 1793 and 1828, whereas in Madras it increased by only 40.15 p. c. during the
same period.

2 Ibid, p. 54.

3 lbid, pp. 58-59.

4 Ibid, p. 60.

5 lbid, p. 72.

6. Ibid, pp. 81-85.

7 Remarks on Settlement in India by Europeans: Eng. Works, Part III, pp. 81-85.

they would help in the diffusion of English language and European arts and sciences in the country
and help the home government to legislate on Indian affairs in a better way to strengthen the hands
of the Government in the event of an in-vasion, and to place the relations between the two
countries on a solid and permanent footing. Even in the event of a separation between the two
countries, these settlers would bring the vast empire in the East to a level with other large Christian
countries in Europe.

The Raja tried to look at the other side of the picture also. The European settlers might wound the
feelings of the ‘natives’ and subject them to humiliations. To avoid this, he suggested that for the

31
first twenty years, only educated persons of character and capital should be allowed to settle.
Secondly, the Europeans, owing to their readier access to persons in authority. might subject the
natives to many sacrifices. As a remedy against these evils, he suggested that European pleaders
should be appointed in the country courts also but placed on an equal footing with Indian vakils in
pleading or defending the cause of their clients. Thirdly, such an immigration might. lead to the
separation and the eventual independence of India, as had happened in America. The Raja thought
that such a contingency would not arise because the Americans were driven to rebellion by mis-
government. Fourthly, the climate in some parts of India might be pernicious, and to avoid this, cool
and healthy spots might be allotted to them for their headquarters.

This interesting discussion for and against the immigration of European settlers into India shows that
the Raja could rise above the narrow prejudices of not only caste and creed but also of race. His
ideas on the subject are more or less completely the same as the ‘Systematic Colonisers’ of
England—e.g., Wakefield and others—were putting out about this time for the proper colonisation
of Australia. But even these proposals would seem to spring from the depths of the

Raja’s profound patriotism and nationalism. The India of his vision would be -speaking the English
language in common with the bulk of the people of the Empire”.I There would be diffusion of a
knowledge of European arts and sciences; she would be one of the two free and Christian countries
resembling each other in language, religion and manners:2 she would enlighten and civilise the
surrounding natives.3 In sharp contrast to this pathetic belief of the Raja in the virtues of selective
colonisation of India by British settlers, and his freedom from a spirit of narrow nationalism, may be
cited his strong protest against the attempt to limit the power to alienate property under the
Dayabhag system in Bengal, suggested by Sir C. E. Grey, Chief Justice of Bengal, in 1829-30. The Raja
strongly objected to any amendment of the traditional laws of the country.

Last Days: The Raja’s sojourn in England was a veritable triumph, and he was received everywhere
with honour and distinction. He had gone there to plead for an increase of pension to the Emperor
of Delhi. and secured an addition of 3 lakhs to the pension. The lords of the Privy Council asked him
to sit with them when they sat to consider and ultimately reject the public petition of the orthodox
against the abolition of Sati. King Louis Philippe of France received him at Paris, in 1832. The Raja
rejoiced with the English Whigs at the successful passage of the Reform Bill of 1882 praying that the
people of England might now cherish public spirit and liberal principles and at the same time banish
bribery and corruption. . He asserted that in the event of the failure of the measure, he would have
renounced his connection with the country.’

1 English Works, Part III, p. 82.

2 “If events effect a separation still a friendly intercourse may be kept up between two free
and Christian countries,-united by resemblance of language, religion and manners.” Ibid, p. 85.

3 Ibid, p. 83.

4 Collet, p. 204.

1 R. R’s letter to Mr. Crawford on Jury Act of 1827, written on A4. 18.- 1828, Ibid. pp. 153-154.

32
The Raja’s liberal sympathies were shocked at the sup-pression of the Neopolitan revolt of 1821 by
the Austrians; he gave a dinner to celebrate the liberation of the Spanish colo-nies. He insisted on
being carried to a French ship at the Cape of Good Hope to salute the French tricolour—the
revolutionary emblem of equality. liberty and fraternity. He felt convinced that intercourse with the
Europeans and knowledge of Western arts and sciences would, in a 100 years, endow Indians with
“the spirit as well as the inclination to resist effectually any unjust and oppressive measures serving
to degrade them in the scale of society”.1 In all this, we have a further confirmation of the Raja’s
belief in the virtues of the British connection with India and sympathy with the liberal cause all over
the world which were articles of faith with the Indian Liberal Party subsequently.

The Raja’s general ideas bear a clear impress of the liberal ideology of contemporary England.
Evangelical Christianity and Unitarianism seem to have exercised the greatest influence upon his
thought. The former patently underlies his foundation of the Brahmo Samaj. and to the latter source
may be attributed his zeal for “practical philanthropy” of the Benthatnite school, such as his crusade
for the abolition of Sati, the promotion of education, and for reform of the Jury system, etc. Like
Bentham, the Raja had no faith in vague “declarations of Rights’’, but like the Benthamites, he
believed strongly in promoting legislation to redress known abuses and promote necessary reforms.
Unlike Bentham, whose laws could be made applicable anywhere without regard to clime or
country, the Raja firmly believed in the basing of laws “as far as possible on those principles which
are common to and acknowledged by all the different sects and tribes inhabiting the country”.’ His
views on legal matters also indicate the influence of Sir W. Blackstone.2

The lacunae in the Raja’s Liberalism arc easy to detect at the present day with our existing
knowledge of the Liberal canon in its fully developed form. The Raja never envisaged the
establishment of a representative legislature, a bmadbased system of suffrage, compulsory public
education or a system of responsible Government in India. Perhaps, the explanation of these
drawbacks in the Raja’s thought lies in the comparatively limited development of these concepts in
contemporary England itself, and in the Raja’s consciousness and knowledge of India’s own
backwardness.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Liberalism shows a wonderful combination of thought and action, either
being inseparable from the other. His exposition of the Eastern and Western scriptures indicates a
spirit of inquiry which cuts at the root of all dogmatic fanaticism. The Raja wanted his countrymen to
retain whatever was good in their religion, all that was humane and rational, and to adapt from
Christianity all that was progressive and good in it. His advocacy of the Western system of education,
the freedom of the press and better administration, his scathing denunciation of Sati and polygamy,
his criticism of caste, his stout opposition of idolatry—all point to his efforts for liberalising and
humanising the life of India.

Both his action and his thought represent the results of the first commingling of the East and the
West. This intermingling emancipated Indian thought from its thraldom to the ages. As Prof. Max
Muller put it, “the Raja was the first to complete a connected life-current between the East and the
West—the inspired engineer in the world of faith that cut the channel of communication, the
spiritual Suez

1 Views on a Code of Criminal Law for India in Eng. Works, Part III, pp. 32-35.

33
2 Ibid, p. 69.

between sea and sea land-locked in the rigid sectarianism of exclusive revelation, and set their
separate surges of national life into one mighty world-current of universal humanity.”‘

Other Bengali Pioneers: The Hindu College founded by the Raja in 1819 grew up in due course to be
the nursery of Liberalism in Bengal. Several young men trained at this institution, and nurtured, so to
speak, under the eye of the Raja, matured to be the early Liberal leaders of the province. They have
been described as “the Philosophical Radicals”2 of India in imitation of the group of the same name
in England at the time because they had much in common with their English contemporaries. They
were a small group only, and so cannot be described as a party: but their contribution to the
formulation of early political thought in India is out of all proportion to their numbers. It was they, it
may be claimed, who provided after Raja Ram Mohan Roy the intellectual structure and framework
of the earliest phase of Indian Liberalism. The most remarkable features of the ideas and the work of
these pioneers are that (i) they are not content merely with the provision of English education for
the people but have elaborate plans as to what the new education should be like; and (ii) secondly,
they openly condemn and criticise the government of the Company for its sins of omission and
commission. In both these respects, they are noticeably and naturally in advance of Raja Ram Mohan
Roy. In these new trends is to be found a faint but distinct trace of the new Indian Liberalism’s
advance to majority and maturity.

The ‘Englishman’ of Calcutta, a contemporary newspaper, described the group as “radicals and
followers of Benthamite

I Quoted by R. Venkat Ratnam in his speech on “The Spirit of Rammohan Roy” in Theistic
Conference, at Calcutta, 1906: Collet, p. 272.

B. Majuradar: ‘History of Political Thought’.

principles.”‘ Five young men from the group achieved public eminence in the days to come, and they
were, in order, Tara Chand Chakravarti, Dakshinanarayana, Rasik Krishna h[tillic, Ram Gopal Ghosh
and Pyare Chandra Mitra. They were greatly influenced by one of their teachers, Henry Vivian
Derozio, who served in the Hindu College from 1809 to 1831, and who seems to have been a brilliant
teacher, organiser, journalist, poet and philosophcr.2 One of his pupils, Pyare Chand Mitra,
attributed their love of liberty and country to the teachings and the example of this great teacher.’
They were also greatly influenced by the ideas of Bacon, Hume and Thomas Paine.’

These young men established in the twenties and the thirties of the last century several institutions
for acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and for promoting friendly relations among the
members.

The very names of these bodies throw a flood of light on the intellectual interests of the founders.
One was named the “Academic Association”, another as “the Society for the Acquisition of General
Knowledge” and a third as “the Hindu Theo-Philanthropic Society”. “To spread their views among
the people, they also published several magazines, such as the Parthenon (1830), the Gyananneshun
(1831), the Hindu Pioneer (1832), the Bengal Spectator (1842), the Inquirer and the Quill. One of
these magazines has an article on the Government of India which states that “the Government of
India (under the English) is purely aristocra-tical; the people have no voice in the Council of the

34
legislature; they have no hand in framing the laws which regulate their civil conduct. We need not
expatiate on the monopoly of the State Service, the laws’ delays, the

The “Englishman”, May 1836, quoted in the ‘Asiatic Intelli-gence’ of October, 1836.

2 See His Biography by Thomas Edwards (1884), p. 40.

3 Life of David Hare by Pearey Chand Mitra--quoted by Majumdar, p. 80.

4 “Calcutta Christian Observer”, Aug., 1832.

insolence of office, the heavy expenses of Government, the retirement from India of all those who
acquire wealth and the enormous taxation to which the country is subjected—evils too well-known
in India. The Mohammedans patronised merit wherever it was to be found; the English, like the
primitive Hindus, have no caste of men to govern the general body. The violent means by which
foreign supremacy has been established, and the entire alienation of the people of the soil from any
share in the Government, nay, even from all offices of trust and power, are circumstances which no
commercial, no political benefits can authorize or justify.”‘

It is interesting to take bird’s eyeview of the main aims of the group in their public activities. Firstly,
they wanted the Government to extend educational facilities for the people—not only to improve
their character but to fit them better for their avocations and to improve the machinery of the
Government. Rasik Krishna said, “It becomes the paramount duty of the Government if it really has
the good of its subjects at heart, to spare no means in its power to facilitate the education of the
natives. “2 Tara Chand writes, An enlightened Government ought likewise to direct their attention to
the dissemination of sound and useful know-ledge among the rising generation of their subjects. The
general enlightenment of the people is undoubtedly the best guarantee of good Government. While
it checks the com-mission of crime, it contributes to the preservation of peace, and by promoting
the interest of commerce it strengthens the resources of Government.”3 Akshya .Kumar Dutta
reiterates this view in his ‘Dharmaniti’ and says that Government cannot even maintain peace and
order efficiently with- ----

L’Hindu Pioneer’ quoted in the Asiatic Journal of May—Aug., 1938, in the essay on the Education of
the Natives of India.

2 ‘Gyananneshun’ quoted in the India Gazette on March 29, 1833.

I “The Bengal Spectator”, Nov. 15, 1842, quoted by Majumdat, p. 112.

out educating the citizens.’ One can see quite clearly the reason for their insistence on the State to
provide for the education of the ruled. The pupils of the Hindu College, more than others naturally
realised the importance of the expansion of English education and regarded it as a grand remedial
agent for all the evils of the country. English edu-cation could be imparted through modern colleges,
which could not be started by private agencies for public opinion was neither so developed nor so
well organised at the time that funds could be provided on an adequate scale for the purpose in
view. Again, the existing indigenous system of education too was quite inadequate to promote the
intellectual and political progress of society. Education having been denied to people in the 18th
century, they had contracted certain inhibitions and complexes which dulled their acumen and

35
rendered them socially myopic. This age long inertia could be dissolved by the knowledge and the
persistent inculcation of western ideas through the English language. Moreover, the demand of the
Indian leaders for progressive participation in administration could be made effective only when
their countrymen were better informed and educated.

These early pioneers wanted not merely education but they elaborately condemned a “godless”
system of education. They also wanted technical and scientific education, and one is amazed to read
of their insistence on the establishment of a system of free and compulsory education at that early
period when such a system was not in operation even in Great Britain! Tara Chand favoured the
setting up of schools like “the Polytechnic School of Paris and various other institutions for imparting
theoretical and practical instruction in the Mechanical Arts, Agriculture, Archi

p. 141.

Lecture, Drawing, Navigation “1 Akshay Kumar

Dutt,2 perhaps the greatest educationist of the 19th century, pleaded in his book ‘Dharmaniti’, for
the introduction of free and compulsory education. He adumbrated a strangely “modern” scheme of
education for children from the age of 2 onwards to the age of 20 or 22, providing for the ‘diversion’
of the pupils at the secondary stage td agriculture and technology, shipbuilding, engineering and
other trades, and restriction of admissions at the higher levels.3 He wanted instruction at all stages
to be imparted through the medium of the mother-tongue, saying that the use of English as the
medium of instruction had a demoralising influence on the character of the people. He
recommended the translation of English books into the vernacular. His curriculum em-braced the
Sciences, History, Geography and the Arts, and laid emphasis on the moral training of the children. It
is astonishing how Akshay Kumar’s ideas anticipated practically all that we are thinking of doing
today.

The political ideas of these early Bengali leaders are equally progressive and liberal.
Dakshinanarayan Mukerji, who played a notable part in the public life of Bengal between 1830 and
1857, was a great believer in equality and attributed the growth of social inequality in Indian Society
to the influence of the priests.’ He was quoted by Buckle in his History of Civilisation, and influenced
Bunkim Chandra also greatly. Akshay Kumar Dutt. perhaps the most learned of these pioneers, is
credited by Majumdar, with having anticipated the organismic theory of the State before Spencer!’

1 The -Bengal Spectator”, Dec. 15. 1842, p. 6.

2 Akshay Kumar Dun, born in 1820 and died in 1886—Teacher in Tam:11)0(111mi Pathshala and
later Head Master, Normal School, Calcutta—Works: Dharmaniti and others.

8 Dharmaniti, Vol. II, pp. 60, etc.

4 “Bengal Harkaru”, March 2, 1843, quoted by Majunidar, p. 117.

3 Majumdar, pp. 130-131.

Unlike Mill and Spencer, however, the philosophical Radicals of India did not believe that the State
should engage in “negatively regulative” functions only. They pleaded that it should undertake social
reform, fix the age of marriage, promote education, provide- for divorce, remove poverty, and help

36
the poor against the rich. A few among them even longed for the occurrence of some sort of a
“French Revolution” in India—which views were condemned by ‘the Friend of India’ as “absolute
nonsense”.’ They criticised th administration of justice by the E. T. Company and Rasik Krishna even
advocated the abolition of the Company itself! Dakshinanarayan expatiated upon the evils of foreign
rule and attributed the poverty of the people to it.2 Their criticism of the Company’s Government
was not merely destructive. They advocated the Indianisation of the services as a measure of
economy and better government, to provide adequate opportunities for service and advancement
to Indians and to break the snobbery of the civil services “which blinds their sense of justice to
members of its own fraternity and thus thwarts the efforts of ‘natives’ to seek redress from the
grievances to which they may contribute.” Some of them pleaded for the admission of Indian
representatives to the British Parliament even, though Rasik Krishna opposed the suggestion as
impracticable. In 1870, Dakshinanarayan suggested the creation of legislative coun-cils in each
province composed of equal members of Govern-ment nominees and representatives chosen for 5
years by electors enjoying annual incomes of Rs. 1,000/--. The Supreme Legislative Council was to
consist of equal numbers of Government nominees and delegates from the provincial Legislative
Councils.’

1 “Friend of India”—March, 16, 1843.

2 “Bengal Harakaru”—Feb. 13, 1843.

8 The “Bengal Spectator” Jan. 15, 1843. • The “Englishman”, June 18, 1870.

The foregoing brief review of the genesis of Indian Liberalism and of the leading ideas of its early
pioneers suffices to show that the leading ideas of the party had been already evolved by 1870. Raja
Ram Mohan Roy and his successors and disciples firmly believed in the great benefit that ‘English
education and Tndia’s close connection with England and the West implied for the country’s uplift
and progress. ‘They zealously promoted the new type of education and always urged that
Government should be more active in this field. The ferment. of new ideas acquired in English
Schools and Colleges filled their minds with an earnest, desire and will to reform Indian religion.
society, laws and customs. Like their compeers in the West, they had a firm belief in the right of
private property, freedom of the press and independence and interrritv or the indiciary. Some of
them demanded fr-e”ter tndilti;c1tion of the public services and even the creation of a national
militia. it is clear that long before the Liberal Congress came in the field. the main lines along which it
was to carry on its activities, down at any rate to the end of the 19th century, had already been
chalked out by these Bengali pioneers. We find, as already indicated, one serious lacuna in their
thought, viz., the absence of all specific demands for self-government or for a responsible executive.
This is in sharp contrast to contemporary European Liberalism. But perhaps the explanation lies in
their conviction of the utter disintegration and demoralisation of contemporary Indian society, the
very limited number of the Indian intelligentsia, and the overwhelming backlog of centuries of feudal
despotism from which India was then suffering. Even this limitation, however, conditioned the
political activity of the Indian National Congress down to the Surat Split in 1907.

37
CHAPTER III : ‘THE GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL
MOVEMENT AND THE FORMATIVE INFLUENCES
The formative phase in the history of Indian Liberalism hay been studied by so many scholars and
from so many diverse standpoints that it is both easy as well as difficult to deal with it satisfactorily.
It is easy because the ‘facts’ of the movement are known fairly adequately; but it is difficult because
the interpretations of those facts are so varied that they have confused the proper assessment of
the different factors concerned. Nevertheless, it forms the immediate background of our study of
Indian Liberalism as a political movement in the second half of the 19th century and must be
attempted despite the difficulties.

Effects of English Education: It can perhaps be stated without, any fear of contradiction that the
most powerful factor in the rise and progress of Liberalism in India during the 19th century was
modern English Education.

Following the establishment of schools and colleges in the various Presidencies, three Universities
were founded in 1857. These institutions helped the Government to train and select young Indians
for the public service. This preference further popularised Western education. As many as 1589
students obtained Arts degrees in the University of Calcutta between 1857 and 1882.’

Deeper still were the results seen in the political life of the people. “They had all been forced to
drink deeply from the wells of English literature, which is, beyond all others, the literature of liberty.
The leaven of thought of Bacon and Milton, Locke and Burke, Wordsworth and

Table printed in the Report of the Bengal Provincial Com-mittee to the Education Commission of
1882, p. 103.

Byron, was working in the minds of Bengal, whose age-long ideals had been those of submission and
self-renunciation. not those of freedom and individual initiative.’’’

Tus, the spread and progress of English education heralded a new era in Indian Society and politics
by directly affecting those who came under its influence, and by influ-encing many more indirectly
through the. activities that English-educated Indians undertook in the country under its inspiration.
It opened new vistas of thought and action to the youth of India; with its aid, they thought they
could now dream of building a new heaven for their people. For, it is curious that the Renaissance of
learning that it heralded, did not content itself merely with the pursuit of culture for its own sake as
in the Italian Renaissance. but that the new generation of English-educated Indian almost atonce
began to spend itself in vigorous efforts for social and political reform.

It is generally admitted that the English language has served during the last century and a half as the
lingua franca of India, enabling the people of different parts of the country to meet together and to
exchange their ideas. It created an all-India fraternity of persons conscious of their depressed status,
of abuses in their society, of newer social and political ideals, and possessed of a language that
enabled them to concert plans and action on a country-wide basis.

The new learning stimulated enquiry and criticism of authority and traditions, and created a love of
freedom of thought and speech. Educated Indians began to struggle for freedom from social,
religious and political servitude. The task of religous reconstruction, however, needed a diffe rent

38
type of men than those produced by the new schools and colleges. Even Ram Mohan was not a
product of such institutions. Such men came to the forefront by and by

1 Calcutta University Commission 1917-19, Vol. I, Ch. iii, pp. 49-50.

to create what has been described as Neo-Hinduism’. Meanwhile, the young men going out of
English schools and colleges, devoted themselves to the twin tasks of widening the bounds of social
and political freedom and forming the nucleus of a Liberal party in the country.

Recovery of India’s Past: It is a strange and curious feature of Anglo-Indian history in the first half of
the 19th century that while English-educated Indians were often losing faith in their own culture, the
first few generations of Anglo-Indian officials were keenly studying Sanskrit literature and
philosophy, Hindu law and religion, and laying the foundations of valuable investigations in Indian
History and Arts. Sir W. Jones, the founder of the Asiatic Society (of Bengal), translated the Manu
Smriti for the first time as well as Kali Dass’s Shakuntala. Colebrooke and H. H. Wilson dived deep
into ancient Hindu lore. Charles Wilkins translated the Bhagwat Gita, and Carey became the first
teacher of Sanskrit at the Fort William College. The second generation of Anglo-Indian scholars, Tod,
Grant Duff and Elphinstonc unravelled the past history of the land and the glorious achievements of
its various peoples. These, as Chirol says, “and many others.... blazed the trail for Max Muller and
Monier Williams and Roth and Burnout and the great host of European scholars who have revealed
to India herself scarcely less than to the Western world the majesty and wealth of the Sanskrit
language and its kinship with the whole group of European languages , and the historical as well as
literary value of the great body of Hindu literature which is the key to India’s civilization.”‘ Prinsep
and Cunnigham unveiled India’s art, epigraphy and archaeology, and were followed in this field by
Indian scholars, such as Rajendra Lal Mira, Ram Dass Sen and R. G. Bhandarkar. The cumulative
effect of these scholarly activities of Englishmen and Indians was gradually to correct

Chirol: ‘India’, London, 1926, pp. 79-80.

1 Areopagitica (Clarendon Press Series) John W. Hales, new ed. (1882), p. 25.

European ideas about Indians and Indian civilization, but above all, to inspire Indians themselves
with respect and reverence [or their own culture and with a consciousness of a common cultural
heritage. It need not be pointed out that these factors were very helpful in creating that sense of
nationality among Indians which was the very basis of Liberal politics in India in the 19th century.

Political Awakening: It was thus inevitable that the new English-educated Indians should begin to
take interest in political matters in due course of time. It has been pointed out in the previous
chapter that already alter 1830, the graduates of the Hindu College in Bengal were beginning to
condemn the rule of the East India Company both for serious defects in its administration and for its
alien character. This was natural as the intellectual pabulum, on which they were being fed in the
new schools and colleges, directly stimulated such interests. The Indian collegians learnt from their
English history books of the impeachment of the king’s ministers and of their drawing up protests to
assert their right of free speech even against the king’s command. Milton taught them that all
human beings are by nature free born and endowed with reason and the right to build their own
destiny. “When Cod gave him Reason, He gave him freedom to choose .”‘ “That it is lawful and hath
been held so through all ages for anyone who has the power, to call to account a tyrant or wicked

39
king and alter due conviction to depose and put him to death because,” as he said “the power of
kings and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred and committed to them
in trust from the people to the common good of all in whom the power yet remains fundamentally,
and cannot be taken from them, without a violation of their natural birthright.”‘ They read Mill
asseverating that “all silen cing of discussions is an assumption of infallibility. No society in which the
liberties (of thought and feeling) are not on the whole respected, is free. whatever may be its form
of Government.”‘ They further read in Mill that parlia mentary government was better than any
other system, that there could be no greater security for good government than that. given by
democracy, that manhood suffrage would pre vent the wealthy middle class from becoming an
oligarchy, of his advocacy of the right of women to vote, his conviction that education was almost a
universal solvent of the problems of democracy, and his belief that “the boundaries of govern ment
should coincide in the main with those of nationali-ties”.8 All these ideas revealed to Indian students
of the earlier generations not only “What they were missing” but also what they ought to strive for.
Their other mentors— Macaulay. Herbert Spencer, Paine, Jefferson. Shelley, Byron and the
‘Philosophes’ of the French Revolution widened their mental outlook and further nourished their
love of liberty and progress. “It was inevitable”. says Chirol. “that when the best young Indian minds
were fed upon the masterpieces of English Literature, and when the history of English social and
political evolution taught them to seek the secret of England’s greatness in her ancient love and
achievement of freedom, they should have begun to apply all the lessons to the conditions of their
own country.”‘ Problem of Unemployment: Further, the problem of educated unemployment is
coeval with the beginnings of the new education. English education opened new careers

I Milton: ‘The Tenures of Kings and Magistrates’ Prose Works (Wallace ed., 1915), pp. 331-334.

2 ‘Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Governments, (Everyman’s Library, 1910), p. 73.

3 Mill: ‘Representative Government’, p. 362.

4 Chirol: ‘India’ (London, Ernest Benn Ltd., 1926) p. 146,

to the youth of the country. Some ‘were called’ but many others failed even at the start to get into
the charmed circle. At the first Civil Service Examination in which Indians com-peted in 1863,
Satyendra Nath Tagorc, R. C. Dutt and Bihari Lal Gupta were successful, but Manmohan Chose and
Lal Mohan Ghosh failed. Those disappointed in reaching the goal, after painful sacrifices by them
and their parents, be-came the natural critics of the foreign Government and the bureaucratic
system and the first pioneers of the liberal movement in Indian politics.

Influence of British Contacts: A steady trickle of young Indians had now also begun to move to
England for study or for business. Their knowledge of Emdish was a condition precedent to such
development. Thus a new bond was

established between the backward Fast and the progressive West which was to exercise a decisive
influence on the future progress of India. The example of Ram Mohan Roy was followed by
Dwarkanath Tagore, Dadabhai Naoroji, W. C. Bonnerji, Kshettra Mohan Dutt, Keshub Chandra Sen
and many others. They studied British institutions at first hand there, and several of them also took
the opportunity of presenting Indian grievances and demands to the British public

40
and parliament through new associations that they set up or through personal contacts. A ‘British
India Society’ was founded in London in July 1839 by Ram Copal Ghosh with the assistance of W.
Adam, a unitarian friend of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Lord Brougham, Sir Charles Forbes and John
Crawford. To collect and supply suitable, material to this body. a ‘Bengal British India Society’ was
founded at Calcutta by Dwarkanath Tagore in April 1843. followed eventually by the ‘British India
Association’ of Calcutta in October 1851. Thus this factor came to play an important and almost
decisive part in the methods of work of the Liberals of India.

Gradually, Englishmen themselves began to take increasing interest in Indian affairs.’ The two
foremost British Liberals of mid-19th century—Cobden and Bright—formed the ‘India Reform
Society’ which sent Delvy Semur, M.P., to India to study the political situation on the spot. Dadabhai
Naoroji and W. C. Bonnerji set up an India Society which became in 1868 the ‘East India Association’.
The ‘Amrita Bazar Patrika’ reported about it that “A set of English personages have formed the East
India Association its object is to improve the Indian conditions There are many Indians
among its members But the majority of them are Englishmen”.2

Interest in Indian affairs was being now shown in Parliament also. Both Fawcett and Gladstone spoke
on Indian affairs in the House of Commons on several occasions. Fawcett,” an economist of the
Manchester School, interested himself much in the matter of financial readjustments between India
and England, and Gladstone,` the leader of the Opposition, spoke vehemently on conservative
misrule in India. After the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885, a British Committee of
the Congress was set up in 1889 consisting of Sir W. Wedderburn, W. S. Caine, W. S. Bright,
Maclaren and George Yule to guide and direct the operation and control the expenditure of the
National Cong

See Chapter II “The Early Friends of India” for the early services of Englishmen in ‘Indian National
Evolution’ by A. C. Mazumdar (II ed. Natesan, 1915, Madras).

2 ‘A. B. Patrika’ dated Sept. 3, 1868, quoted in Reminiscences and Anecdotes of Great Men of India,
Vol. II., p. 25.

3 Fawcett’s resolution in H. of C. in 1868 for simultaneous exami-nation of I. C. S. in Calcutta,

Bombay and Madras as well as in London. His speech in his constituency of Brighton in 1872 on
Indifference of Parliament over India’s welfare. His protest against the practice of introducing Indian
budget in H. of C. in 1870. In 1875 he called Salisbury’s Ball to Sultan of Turkey at India’s expense,
‘Magnificent Meanness’.

4 Gladstone’s speech in December 1887 on Salisbury’s remark on Dadabhai in Lime House Town
Hall, in 1888, on Indian Aspirations, in 1892 on the Act of 1892 in House of Commons.

ress agency in England.’ This Committee started a monthly magazine, named ‘India’ with Digby as its
editor. In 1892 Dadabhai Naoroji himself succeeded in being elected to Parliament as a
representative of the borough of Finsbury. Sir W. Wedderburn, Romesh Chandra Dutt and others
wrote regularly and vigorously in this journal on Indian topics. A recent writer goes so far as to say
that “The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 were due to the persistent and continuous propaganda
carried on in England during the preceding years through these agencies”.2

41
These facts about the increasing contacts between Indians and the foremost contemporary British
Liberals, and of the increasing interest that the latter were beginning to take in Indian affairs, serve
to explain the faith of the Indian Liberals in carrying on political propaganda in England, and their
firm conviction of the eventual sympathy of the British public for the cause of India. If a British
electorate could elect an Indian (Dadabhai Naoroji in 1892) to sit in its political sanctus .sanctoruln to
safeguard their own interests, surely it could be trusted, when fully acquainted with the state of
affairs in India, to do justice to India in full measure. A later generation of Indians ridiculed this
pathetic faith of the Indian Liberals in the good faith of the British, but it is indubitably true that in
the heyday of British Liberalism there was no lack of genuine British sympathy with the cause of
India, specially as this cause only demanded the implementation, in the Benthamite tradition, of
certain administrative reforms to ameliorate the conditions of the Indian people.

The resolution passed by the British India Society on its first anniversary in London on July 5, 1840,
may be cited as an illustration of what kind of reforms progressive Indians and sympathetic
Englishmen considered to be necessary in India at the time. It states that “This meeting is of the

1 ‘How India Wrouht for Freedom’, A. Besant, pp. 94-95. Article by J. C, Bagal in “Modern Review”,
March 1948.

opinion that the oppressive and fluctuating amount of the land revenue, the general resumption by
the Indian Government of demands on land hitherto held rein-free, the imperfection and corruption
in the administration of police and justice, the maintenance of vexatious monopolies are evils which
ought to receive the immediate attention of the Government of the country, as tending to produce
discontent among the native population, to unsettle the tenures of property, and endanger the
public peace, to cramp the exertions of industry and progress of improvement, to lessen the
production of exportable commodities, and by necessary consequences the capacity of extending
commercial relations with Great Britain and other nations, and to diminish the force of the example
which England has set by the abolition of slavery in the W. Indies and thus perpetuate the existence
of slavery in other parts of the World”.’ The emphasis, as the foregoing excerpt shows, is on the
safeguarding of the rights of property, promotion of trade with England, and the removal of all
cramping restrictions on freedom of enterprise. There is no mention therein of political freedom or
self-government for India.

The Rise of the Indian Press: Another great factor in the progress of Liberalism in India was the
growth of an indigenous Press. What western education enabled the new leaders to learn and
discover was broadcast by the Press among the people. The history of the Press in India, in so far as
it has a bearing on the subject of this book, has been dealt with separately in Appendix I. It may,
however, be mentioned here that the various acts and administrative measures of the Government
provided more and more grist to the mills of the Liberal Press in India and thereby more
opportunities for educating public opinion in the country along Liberal lines. Apart from occasional
abuses of administrative authority, repressive legislation, or the maltreat

`The Friend of India’—October 1, 1840.

cunt of Indians by individual Englishmen, the gravamen of Indian criticism of British rule in India
during the second half of the 19th century happened to be its economic evils in this country.

42
Rising Consciousness of Economic Evils: The criticism of the economic aspects of British rule in India
dated from the earliest days of the British connection, and at first, the chief critics were Englishmen
themselves. But as English education spread in India and as Indians gained in political awareness,
they also began to realise and to voice these economic grievances and much of this criticism is now
held to have been quite just by British scholars themselves. Its significance in the context of this
work was that it contributed powerfully to the awakening of a political consciousness among
Indians, and served as the substance of political agitation by the Liberal pioneers of the second half
of the 19th century. Of the Europeans, the chief exponent of this criticism was Digby, editor of the
East Indian Association’s magazine “India”, and among the Indian leaders, the foremost were
Dadabhai NaorojiL and Ramesh Chandra Dutt, author of a learned and authoritative two-volume
Economic History of British Rule. They were followed by a host of lesser writers. Karl Marx, founder
of modern Communism, also wrote repeatedly in criticism of British Economic Policy in India.2

These critics complained of a ‘drain’ of wealth from India ever since Plassey in the shape of bribes
extorted by the Company’s officers from Clive onwards from Indian princes, and the heartless
exploitation of Indian craftsmen by the Company’s officers to provide for the annual investments
The grant of the Diwani opened “a new field of limitless

I See ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in lndia’—London, 1901.

2 Recently an Indian Communist, R. P. Dutt, has restated this Marxian view in “India To-day”, (1947).

3 See Mir Kasim’s memorandum to the English Governor (May. 1792), and Bolt’s ‘Considerations on
Indian Affairs’ (1772), p. 191.

1772.

‘ R. C. Dutt: ‘Economic History of India’, Vol. 1, p. 39. 2Clive’s letter to the Directors—Sept. 30, 1765.

3 According to Report of the Governor, Verelst:—

Imports .... £ 624,375.

Exports .... 6,311,250.

4 Warren Hasting’s ‘Report to the Court of Directors’, Nov. 3,

direct plunder in addition to the profits of the trade”

to the Company’ which Clive himself computed at £1,650,900 annually.2 This surplus served to
finance the export of Indian goods to England which amounted to 10 times the imports from
England.’ To ensure this gain, the land revenue was raised annually and Warren Hastings wrote jubi-
lantly to the Directors that “The net collections of the year 1771 (a year of widespread famine in
Bengal) exceeded even those of l768I”4

The next phase in the British exploitation of India is associated with the attempt to promote the
sales of British goods in Indian markets, specially after the Industrial Revo-lution in England was well
advanced and Napoleon had for-bidden all trade between England and Europe under his Continental
System. The economic policy of the British was marked by (a) tariff discrimination between Indian

43
and British goods in India, (b) direct prohibition of the import of some Indian goods into England and
(c) restrictions on Indian ships under the Navigation Acts. This policy killed Indian manufactures as
has been shown by Sir C. Trevelyan, Montgomery Martin, Sir Henry Cotton, D. H. Buchanan and R. C.
Dutt. As a result of this policy, old industrial towns were ruined; huge numbers of displaced artisans,
such as weavers, spinners, palters, tanners, smelters, and smiths sought refuge in village, upset the
existing rural equilibrium, and created the modern problem of excessive pressure of the population
upon the land. India now rapidly became a country producing raw materials for export to Great
Britain and im

porting finished products from her to meet her requirements of consumer goods.’

The Liberal commentary on these developments was that along with a harsh revenue policy they
represented the old drain of wealth from India and were responsible for the impoverishment and
ruralisation of the Indian people. The increasing imports of manufactured goods directly contributed
to the ruin of Indian industries and to the frequency of famines in India.’ These critics further
pointed to the steady growth of the “Home Charges” as evidence of this exhausting “drain”. These
rose from £2.5 millions in 1851 to L17.3 millions in 1901 and Ll9.4 millions in 1913-14. As a rule, they
consisted of payments for services rendered, but occasionally curious items entered into them. such
as expenses of a state ball given in honour of the Sultan of Turkey who visited London in 1868.”

The Government of India passed to the Crown in 1858, and it launched upon a huge programme of
Public Works during the next 50 years, such as construction of Railways, Canals and Roads. This led
to increased investment of British capital in India, but, as a recent writer has pointed out, whereas
the total investments in these works to the credit of British investors came, between 1856 and 1914,
to £ 500 millions, the net direct export of British capital to India during the same period was no more
than £22.5 millions.’

‘ Exports of raw materials from India:--

18

18

1844

Raw Cotton 9,000,000 lbs. 32,000,000 lbs. 88,000,000 lbs.

Wool 370,000 „ 2,700,000 „

Linseed 2,100 bushels 237,000 bushels.

Wheat exports in 1858 were valued at 3.8 millions and at £ 19.3 millions in 1914.

2 See the chapter on Famines, (pp. 120-149) in “Prosperous British India” by W. Digby (Fisher Unwin,
London 1901). Digby wrote that “Famines and scarcities have been four times as numerous during
the last 30 years of the 19th century as they were one hundred years earlier and four times more
widespread” (pp. 126-127) and caused between 1854 and 1901 famine deaths in India amounting to
28,825,000 (p. 130).

44
3 L. H. Jenks: ‘The Migration of British Capital’, pp. 223-24.

4 R. P. Dutt: India Today, p. 113.

“Thus”, he says, “the British capital invested in India was in reality first raised in India from the
plunder of the Indian people, and then written down as debt from the Indian people to Britain, on
which they had thenceforward to pay interest and dividends.”‘

Another point of criticism against the British Govern. rnent of India related to the Public Debt of
India. It was swelled by loans for Public Works and expenditure on Imperialist wars many of which
had no relation to the interests of India, and much of this loan was raised in England at rates and
conditions which were highly unfavourable to India. It rose from f 81•1 millions in 1858-59, to f138.9
millions in 1876-77, to f 226.2 millions in 1901-02, Rs, 510 crores in 1913-14 and Rs. 1,138 crores in
1930. .

Yet another sore point was that the tariff policy of India was generally dictated by considerations of
British interests rather than by the good of India. Even when the Government of India, for the nonce,
pleaded for India, it was overruled by the Secretary of State for India in England in compliance with
the wishes of Lancashire. The enactment of the first Factories Act in India in 1881 and the in position
of the Cotton Excise Duty on Indian Mills in 1896, at the behests of Lancashire further exasperated
public opi-nion in India which demanded protection of Indian industries even against England.

The foregoing brief summary of the growing volume of criticism of British economic policy serves to
show how the main items of later Liberal policy were determined and conditioned by it.

Growing Demand for Indianisation of the Services: One exasperating circumstance connected with
the establishment of British rule in India was the exclusion of Indians from employment in any posts
of trust and responsibility in the administration and Government of their country.

R. P. Dutt: ‘India Today’, p. 113.

Sir John Shore wrote that “The Indians have been excluded from every honour, dignity or office
which the lowest Englishmen could be prevailed upon to accept.’” In his evidence before the Select
Committee of the House of Com-mons in 1832, Sullivan, who served in India from 1804 to 1841,
stated that the chief disadvantage of British rule in India that the “Natives” complained of was “their
exclusion from all offices of trust and emolument, and from that position in the administration of the
country. civil and military, which they occupied under their own princes”.2 In answer to a further
question he replied that. “Nothing could compensate them” for such exclusion. Twenty years later,
before the Select Committee on the renewal of the Company’s Charter in 1853, Sullivan again
affirmed that British administration was more expensive than pre-British Indian administrations
because of “an expensive element which they were free from, which is the European element, civil
and military, which swallows up so much of the revenue”.8

It was pointed out earlier in this chapter that the problem of educated unemployment is coeval with
the start of English education in India. But in the light of the foregoing excerpts from the
unimpeachable evidence of experienced Anglo-Indian administrators themselves, it has further to be
pointed out that the problem was not one of merely jobs for a few ambitious English-educated
youths, but the more fundamental one of satisfying the natural aspirations of a disinherited people

45
for a proper place in the Government of their own country. The Charter Act of 1833, passed on the
upsurge of a great tidal wave of Liberalism in England, laid down that ‘no native of British India, by
reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, or colour, shall be dis

Sir John Shore: ‘Notes on Indian Affairs.—London 1837, Vol. II, page 516, quoted by R. C. Dutt, Vol. 1,
page 411.

a Minutes of Evidence, Vol. 1, pp. 65-66; Ibid, page 412.

Third Report of the Select Committee, 1853, pp. 19-20, quoted by R. C. Dutt, Vol. 1, page 415.

abled from holding any place’ under the rule of the Com-pany. The Charter of 1858 further threw
open the compe-titive examination for the Civil Service to Indians equally with the Europeans. The
Queen’s Proclamation of 1858, after the Mutiny, reiterated the pledge of 1833 with the add-ed
authority of the Sovereign’s Command. In 1870, provi-sion was also made under an Act of that year
for direct nomination of Indians to a certain proportion of Civil Service posts.

In practice, however, the progress of lndianisation of the Services was woefully slow. Lord Lytton
even admitted in a confidential letter to Lord Cranborne in 1876 that “these claims and expectations
never can or will be fulfilled.... We had the choice between prohibiting them and cheating them”.’
The large educated class, now coining into being, soon realised that they were being “cheated”. In
1877, by the order of the then Secretary of State for India, Lord Salisbury, the maximum age-limit for
the open competitive examination for the Indian Civil Service was reduced from 21 to 19 years. As
this meant, in reality and by implication, that Indians who wished to compete for this Service should
also receive all their education in England, before taking the examination, the new regulation limited
the prospects of Indian graduates drastically. Accordingly, a public agitation, to secure the raising of
the maximum age-limit and for holding the examination simultaneously both in India and England,
was organised by the Indian Association of Calcutta on a country-wide scale.

The late (Sir) Surrendra Nath Banerji toured during 1877 and 1878 over North and South India
visiting the principal towns, meeting prominent members of the local intelligentsia and holding
public meetings at these places. He summed up the results of his tour as follows: “For the first time
under British Rule, India with its varied races and re

1Quoted in “India Today” by R. P. Dutt—p. 398, F. 10

ligions had been brought upon the same platform for a com-mon and united effort”.1 It niay be
pointed out that the lecturer spoke everywhere in English and so his appeal was necessarily limited
to the English-educated intelligentisa.

These feelings of frustration and, so to speak, national disinheritance were all the more acute at
their exclusion from the Army in India since the Mutiny. Only “the martial races” of India were now
eligible for a military career and even they could only join in the ranks and not as com-missioned
officers. Even in the ranks, they were excluded from the artillery and the technical services. No
Indian could keep any arms except by licence of the Government although every European in India
was free to keep any small arms that he liked. Even those in the Army were not properly armed. Dr.
J. N. Sarkar has stated that at the battle of Maitland (1884), “General Burrows employed the Jacobs’
Rifles, a hundred sepoys of which had never fired ball cartridges before, and these men were pitted

46
against Ayub Khan’s Afghans armed with the latest Russian rifles and artillery.”2 Indians could not
join the Volunteer Force either even though a Negro from Jamaica could freely join the Calcutta
Volunteer Rifles. And yet, the Army Budget of India ate up over 45 p. c. of the Indian Revenues.
Indian leaders naturally protested continuously against this “emasculation” of India by the British
and the top-heavy Army budget. Gokhale was a pertinacious critic of the military budget, and when
once the then Finance Minister sought to refute his arguments by pointing out that Japan spent 60
p. c. of her annual revenues on her defence budget, Gokhale retorted: “I am ready to vote 75 p. c.
for the army if you officer it with

S. N. Banerji: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 51.

2 J. N. Sarkar: In an article “How the British lost India”, Modern Review, Oct., 1951.

our own men and leave the foreign policy of the country in our own hands as Japan does”.’

It is, therefore, clear how and why this criticism of the administrative and military policies and the
army budget of the Government of India became a permanent plank in the programme of the Indian
Liberal Party later on. The public agitation they organised seemed to bear some fruit as shown by
the appointment of various Commissions (in 1887, 1912 and 1923) to consider this problem of
Indianising the services, but generally the Commissions suggested a mere tinker’s solution of the
problem. So, it became one of the major demands of the Liberal Party and the National Congress in
the subsequent years. It may be re-emphasized that, in the last analysis, it was not a mere demand
for more ‘loaves and fishes’ of office, but an effort to assert the rightful place of Indians in the
Government of their own country.

Social Changes: Meanwhile British Government policy and the other inevitable concomitants of
British rule, were fast changing the whole structure and outlook of Indian Society. British land policy,
marked as it was by progressive increase of the land revenue, creation of individual rights of
property in village lands, village management through petty Government officials rather than
through the village Panchayats, recognition of “zamindars” as proprietors of village land, etc. had
totally destroyed that most ancient institution of the country—the Village Community—”the
miniature republics” of Munro, which had survived al-most intact the changes and chances of a
millennium of foreign rule. Their decline constituted a “social revolution” as Marx recognised.2 It
atomised our rural society and weakened all those traditional sanctions of social behaviour that had
contributed to economic stability, communal harmony and social justice in former times.

Gokhale’s budget speech of 1905.

2 Marx: ‘Das Capital’ (the Modern Library, New York, 1906), Ch. XIV, Part 4, pp. 392-93.

Further, Anglo-Indian civil and penal laws had been “reformed” since 1835 on the basis of equity and
‘Enlighten-ed’ western jurisprudence. In many directions, the changes were indubitably for the
better. But in others, they cannot be called any improvement at all over the previous conditions. It is
common knowledge now that the Anglo-Indian laws and judicial system increased litigation, and the
expense and the legal chicanery involved in seeking justice in the new courts. If justice in the pre-
British era could be secured only by those who could the more successfully “butter” the nazis, now it
was within the reach only of those who had the longest purse to pay for the stamp dues, the court
processes, and the unending legal advice. Above all, the new laws were based on the principle of

47
equality, which was very good and welcome to Indians, but which none the less steadily dissolved
the whole traditional structure of Indian society. Zamindar and tenant, Brahmin and Pariah, Hindu
and Muslim were now all equal in the eyes of the law. The only exception were the Europeans
resident in India and their offspring, the Eurasians, who were looked upon as a race apart, to be
treated differently from the “natives”. It is against this egalitarian background of the whole tenor of
Anglo-Indian jurisprudence, and of the ready welcome of this basis by Indians, that the storm of
indignation aroused by the infamous Ilbert bill can be correctly understood and appreciated.

The New Economic Milieu: The most far-reaching, concrete changes that occurred in India during the
Post-Mutiny years, however, lay perhaps. in the eco-nomic sphere. The improvement of
communications (Railways, Posts and the Telegraphs), the rise of factory in-dustry, the new
machinery of business, credit and trade, the involuntary inclusion of India in the world market, and
her full subjection to the blasts of competitive economic exploitation mark a new era in her social
history. The rapid decline of her traditional cottage industries has already been referred to. While
the new lingua franca, i.e., English language, the new means of communication, and the uniform
laws and system of administration knit her together into a single economic, social and political unit,
and brought her within the ambit of world forces, they also created new social stresses in her body
politic. New problems of rural and urban unemployment, factory labour, new puzzles of modern
credit, currency and exchange, urgent issues relating to the Govern-ment of the fast increasing new
towns and cities and of poverty and economic progress, triff and trade—began to assume an
urgency and an importance unknown in the more unhurried days of yore. It was inevitable that
these problems should at-tract the attention of her Indian Liberals later on and demand urgent
solutions and we shall have occasion to deal with them in detail in later chapters. Dadabhai Naoroji,
Ranade, Gokhale, D. E. Wacha, and many another Liberal stalwart of a later day had their work cut
out deal with these national questions of vital importance.

Need for Social Reform: These new forces were slowly undermining the ancient institutions of Joint
Family and Caste but as yet only in urban communities where the new English-educated middle-class
intel-ligentsia was more numerous. Social reforms under-taken by public and private agencies ever
since 1828 have already been referred to in Chapter II. Caste with its elaborate regulation of
marriages, inheritance and social intercourse was still the dominant social institution of India. Caste
rules of endogamy and exogamy rigidly limited the scope for social unification. It limited the
individual’s choice of oc-cupations. It is inherently the antithesis of equality and de-mocracy. It
protected the customs of early marriage and en-forced widowhood. Evils like these arrested the
attention of the critical and often unsympathetic foreigner who was too ignorant to know of the
good that caste had done to India in the past by ensuring social and economic stability, the gra

dual uplifting of social standards, and above all the protection of the life and the culture of the
backward communities. The proud imperialist, overconscious of the benefits that the British Raj
wrought for India’s sake through his own doughty hands, the cynical globe-trotter passing through
the country like the winter breezes, and the sanctimonious but utterly ignorant missionary painted
lurid pictures of the evils of caste to emphasize the superiority of the alien culture and religion. But
none of these fulminations appreciably weakened the hold of caste on the mass mind of India. India
looked upon Englishmen as “of an insignificant country, dissolute morals and a degraded religion”.’
More intimate acquaintance with them later, as rulers and administrators, did not improve the
impression. So, while intelligent Indians have ever understood and appreciated England’s beneficial

48
services to India then and now, foreign criticism of their social institutions left them cold and
unresponsive. This work could only be attempted by Indians themselves, and the new generation of
Liberal leaders took to it avidly and in a spirit of missionary zeal. We shall discuss this at greater
length in the following chapters.

New Institutions: India’s political frustrations and her conviction that British rule in India had been
synonymous with the emasculation, impoverishment and enslavement of the Indian people never
blinded her to the beneficient aspects of the Indo-British connection or dimmed her faith in British
goodwill and the British sense of justice.

As Dadabhai Naoroji put it, all that was ugly in British rule in India was “unworthy of the British
honour and name, and entirely in opposition to the wishes of the British people, and utterly in
violation of the Acts and Resolutions of Parliament and of the most solemn and repeated pledges of
the Bri

I Philip Anderson: ‘The English in W. India’, p. 32.

tish nation and Sovereign”.1 Their quarrel was with the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy which was
responsible for misinterpreting the good intentions of the British people and Parliament in practice,
both of which they counted as their allies in the noble work of creating a new India. The Young India
nourished on the great English Classics could not indeed ever forget that the nation that had given
the world the gift of Parliamentary Democracy, and Shakespeare’s dramas, and poems like those of
Milton, Byron, Shelley and Tennyson, or scientists and philosophers like Bacon, Newton, Locke,
Bentham, Mill and Ruskin could be otherwise than just and fair.

This faith was sustained by various periodical evidences of British political wisdom and
responsiveness. The Indian Councils Act of 1861 admitted nominated non-official Indians to the
Viceroy’s Legislative Council and set up similar councils in the subordinate Presidencies. This act may
be said to have laid the foundations of provincial decentralisation, and of representative, though not
responsible, Government in India. The object was “to conciliate to (our) rule the minds of the natives
of high rank”.2 In 1870, Lord Mayo inaugurated further financial decentralisation and laid the
beginnings of local Self-Government. Lord Ripon decided to make the municipalities and district
boards popular and elective bodies “not primarily with a view to improvement in administration

but as an instrument of political and popular

education” 3 He was vehemently opposed in doing this by

the bureaucracy. The Bombay Government naively suggested that it would be better ‘to create and
educate a public spirit’, before embarking upon such an experiment. Ripon’s rejoinder to this is
famous that “there was no other method (to do this) than by affording to the public a practical
oppor

‘ Masani: ‘Dadabhai Naoroji’, p. 396.

2 Wood’s Speech—June 6, 1861, Keith: ‘Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy’, Vol. II, p. 14.

3 Quoted by K. Vyas Rao in “Future Government of India” (London, 1918), p. 380.

49
tunity of displaying and cultivating such a spirit in the management of some portion, however
limited, of public affairs”.1 Lord Ripon repealed the Vernacular Press Act of 1878 passed by Lord
Lytton,’ took up extensive educational reforms8 and pursued the policy of admitting more and more
Indians to the public service in various ways.* He wrote to the Secretary of State that there were
two policies: the one was of helping Indians to rise and the other was of blocking their progress.
“Between these two policies we must choose; the one means progress, the other means repression.
Lord Lytton chose the latter, I have chosen the former, and I am content to rest my vindication upon
a comparison of the results.”

The Ilbert Bill: Ripon’s regime is also famous for his attempt to purge the Criminal Procedure Code of
the disgraceful racial discrimination enacted into it since long. The Ilbert Bill of 1883 sought to place
Europeans in India on the same level as Indians by extending the jurisdiction of Indian judges to
cases in which Europeans might be involved. A furious controversy arose over this bill in Anglo-
Indian and European circles. They formed a Defence Association to fight the bill out and they won.
The failure of the bill “left a rankling sense of humiliation in the mind of educated India”.* They
called a ‘National Conference’ to meet in Calcutta in imitation of the European Defence Association.
Ripon left India a year before the end of his term in disgust but with India’s undisguised homage as a
great Viceroy shown in the spontaneous public demonstration on his departure. S. N. Banerji says

Quoted by Vyas Rao: “Future Government of India”, p. 380.

2 Lucien Wolf, ‘Life of Ripon’, Vol. II, pp. 108-114.

3 Ibid, pp. 114-115.

Ibid, pp. 115-118.

6 Ripon’s Memorandum to the Secretary of State, Dec. 25, 1882; A. C. Batteries Indian Constitutional
Documents, Vol. II, pp. 81-82. 6 S. N. Banerji: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 86.

that one could see “the beginnings of a united national life, the birth of a new spirit of co-operation
among the Indian people destined to have a profound influence on their future evolution”.’ The
immediate practical result of the Ilbert Bill controversy and its aftermath was the foundation of the
Indian National Congress a year after Ripon’s Departure.2

The Proclamation of the Queen as Empress of India: The ultimate significance of one development of
this rime, the Declaration of the Queen as Empress of India in 1877, passed almost unnoticed at the
time. This Declaration made India legally a separate political unit by having a Sovereign of her own.
This was. legally, a recognition by a Tory Government of India’s separate nationhood. However.
educated India was quite aware of the gulf between the law and its application, and felt that only in
the Indianisation of the Government lay the salvation of the country.

Foreign Examples and Influences: ‘This nascent nationalism of the country now received much
needed and welcome •further nourishment from two sources. Firstly, the latter half of the 19th
century was a period of the triumph of Liberalism and Nationalism in Europe. The unification of Italy
and Germany was followed by the triumph of nationalism in Rumania, Servia and Montenegro.
England herself passed her second and third Reform Bills in 1867 and 1884-85 and went on to
democratise her county and parish administrations. The battle royal of Irish Home Rule was fought

50
in 1885 and 1892-93. Nearer home, japan was fast rising to the position of a first-rate power and
ultimately defeated Russia, one of the mightiest of European Powers in 1904-05. Indian public men
have been sensitive to European and foreign developments ever since Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s time.°
The Indian intelligentsia read European authors, political philosophers and scientists,

I S. N. Banerji: ‘A Nation in Making’. p. 88.

2 C. Y. Chintamani: ‘Indian Politics since the Mutiny’, p. 13. ilSee Chapter II above, page 49.

avidly then and now. Bentham, Spencer and Mill had been their favourite authors, and Surendra
Nath has testified to the tremendous influence that Mazzini, the prophet of later-day nationalism,
exercised upon him. “Upon my mind,” he says, “the writings of Mazzini had created a profound
itnpression. The purity of his patriotism, the loftiness of his ideals, and his all-embracing love of
humanity expressed with the true eloquence of heart moved me as I had never before been moved.
I discarded his revolutionary teaching as unsuited to the circumstances of India and as fatal to its
normal development but I inculcated the enduring lessons of his noble life ....his lofty patriotism”.’
Lajpat Rai also translated Mazzini’s ‘Duties of Man’ and published his biography in Urdu. To stun up,
one factor that was broadening and deepening the sense of nationality and the spirit of nationalism
in India during this formative period of Indian Liberalism was this example of foreign countries and
foreign peoples. A second factor that now came to be active in the background was the movement
that has been named as the Indian ‘Renaissance’ to which we must now turn. The Renaissance and
its results added a depth and a width to the national movement in India which it otherwise might
have lacked.

The Indian Renaissance: Marx opined that England “was the unconscious tool of History in bringing
about a social revolution in India” by the destruction of the village community.2 and it was this
revolution which paved the way for a new reconstruction of Indian society. The missionary view has
been very strongly expressed by N1acnicol. “No thoughtful observer,” he says. “whether Indian or
European, will deny that the main factor in producing the movement of thought and the
recombination of beliefs in the country is Christianity”.3 The late C. F. Andrews attributed the

S. N. Banerji: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 43.

2 Marx: ‘A Letter to Engels’, June 14, 1853.

Micol Macnicol: ‘The Making of Modern India’, Oxford University Press (1924), p. 41.

19th century Renaissance of India to the regeneration of India’s ancient culture by ‘cross
fertilisation’ from the culture of the West which produced a fresh efflorescence and also added
variety to the original culture itself”.’

All these views appear to be partially correct. The general dissolution of Indian Society in the 18th
and 19th centuries did really pave the way as well as call for a social and ideological reconstruction.
But this view does not explain the actual lines of development which that movement followed.
Again, it is difficult to say that the new attitude to social evils and the new spirit of social service that
developed in India from Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s time onwards, or that the new trends in the religious
thought of India in the 1 9th century were not at all influenced and partially shaped by the criticism,
the teachings and the examples of Christian missionaries. Indeed, it can be safely asserted that the

51
bulk of Anglo-Indian administrators from Bentinck’s days to those of Dalhousie were evangelists in
their private lives and so the whole underlying trend of the E. I. Company’s ad-ministration during
this period was ‘Christian’. Again, the concept of the interaction and mutual cross-fertilisation of
cultures is a familiar concept of cultural history today. The knowledge of western sciences and
literature, of the institutional life of the West, and a fairly intimate contact with Western
Christianity—all provided the pollen of new concepts and new ideals that refertilised the Indian
mind, and helped to create a ‘New’ India by and by. The basic factor in this movement, iti the
judgment of the present writer, was the new English education. We owe the birth of Indian
Liberalism, the growth of Indian Nationalism and the Swaraj movement and every other
manifestation of Indian discontent primarily to the introduction of western education in India.2

1 C. F. Andrews: “The World Outlook Today—India”, Modern

Review, Feb., 1940, p. 155.

2 See also Stanley Reed: ‘The India I Knew (1897-1947)’, p. 162.

India reacted to these new forces in three ways. Some English-educated Indians succumbed to the
enchantments of the new culture and abandoned without any regrets the society that, as their
mentors described it, was ridden with all sorts of mental, spiritual and social evils. They were the
rebels who voluntarily disinherited themselves of their glorious patriomony. A second type—the
reformist—felt that there was much that was good in the Western way of thought and life, but
refused to unhitch themselves from their ancient moorings, and tried to remove the more glaring
evils from their own society seeking to recreate a progressive regime both in society and in the state.
The third type, which may be called as the conservatives, saw little in the new culture that they
could accept but, nevertheless, restudied their own with new eyes and new minds and tried by new
interpretation to establish the superiority of the traditional culture of the land over occidental
innovations. The last two categories were complementary to each other, and it is they with whom
we arc principally concerned in this study, for both these types of leaders have jointly built up the
India of today. It is the men of the two “moderate” categories who, while placing differing emphasis
on the old and the new, were the heralds and agents of our modern national renaissance, the
builders of our nationalism, and the creators of the Liberal ideology which is our subject of study.

New Socio-Religious Movements: The most important aspect of the Renaissance in the 19th century
was the new orientation of Hinduism by several great religious leaders. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, as we
have already seen, represents the reformists. The Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, founded in 1878 and
including such eminent Indians as Shiva Nath Shastri, J. C. Bose, Lord Sinha, C. R. Dass, P. C. Ray, B. C.
Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh, was completely devoid of the earlier Christian leanings of the Brahmo
Samaj, but retained all the earlier zeal for abolition of the pardah, polygamy, child marriages, the
caste system, and actively furthered such reforms as women’s education, widow remarriage, inter-
caste marriages, removal of untouchability and inter-dining.

The Prarthana Samaj of Poona set up by Dr. Atma Rain Pandurang, M. G. Ranade and R. G.
Bhandarkar was an offshoot of the Brahmo Samaj. Ranade became its leading luminary, and
denounced idolatry “because it gave rise to low and grovelling superstitions which impeded the
progress of the nation towards a higher stage of moral and religious life”.’ To Ranade, the Indian
Liberals owed a coordinated programme of social reform. He was deeply aware and appreciative of

52
India’s rich inheritance and declared that “the true reformer has not to write on a clean slate. His
work is more often to complete the half-written sentence “.2 He took a prominent part in founding
the Widow Remarriages Association in 1861 and the Sarvajanik Sabha of Poona in 1870. “lie Annual
Social Conferences held along with the Congress Sessions was another child of his fertile zeal for
social and religious reform. To his lead in economic matters, we shall revert in a later chapter.

Brahmoism and its offshoots may be said to have evolved a new synthesis in the shape of a rational
and enlightened faith that could appeal to the English-educated young men of the day. Socially it
liberated Hindu Society from social evils and sought to introduce positive reforms, such as widow
and intercaste marriages and removal of untouchability and the prohibition of sea-voyages. Religion
became, through its activities, a basis for a nascent nationalism by creating a cotn

1 Gokhale’s speech on Anniversary of Ranade’s Death in the Hindu Union Club, Bombay, 1903;
Gokhale’s Speeches (3rd. ed., Natesan, 1916), p. 773.

2 Quoted by Adv. History, p. 882.

Cf. “We could not”, as Ranade once declared, “break with the past, if we would. We must not break
with it if we could”—Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 788.

mon platform for Indians of all castes and creeds and provinces. Its part in the creation of both
nationalism and Libe-ralism in India can thus be scarcely over-estimated.

The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875 belongs to our third category above.
Swami Dayanand was a profound Sanskrit scholar but he was ignorant of English. He hailed from
Kathiawad where the new English education had as yet made no headway at all. Like Ram Mohan,
he too came to the conclusion that the Vedas did not sanction idolatry and many of the other
prevailing practices and beliefs of the Hindus. Fired by these ideas, Ire sought to prove the
superiority of “Aryan” culture over its rivals and to wean the Hindu Society from its superstitions and
evil customs. For this purpose, he founded the Arya Samaj at Bombay on April 10, 1875.

The Swami and his worthy disciples L. Hans Raj, Pandit Guru Dutt, L. Lajpat Rai, L. Munshi Rain (later
Swami Shradhanand)--laid stress on women’s education, widow-marriage, equality of the sexes and
the abolition of untouchability. They encouraged inter-dining and inter-caste marriages also. This is
not much different. from the Brahmo evangel. What makes the Arya Samaj unique among modern
Indian movements is its emphasis on (I) a truly ‘national’ system of education for the youth of the
land marked by concentration on the study of Sanskrit, the Vedas, and Vedic philosophy, (2)
emphasis on the use of Hindi as the national lingua franca, (3) proselytisation and (4) on ‘Swaraj’. Its
educational and missionary work during •the last three-quarters of a century has received universal
praise. But its ‘Back to the Vedas’ cry is often decried as an illiberal step and condemned as
‘revivalism’. Whatever the view that may be taken of these aspects of the movement, it remains
undeniable that it made an invaluable contribution to the creation of national integration and social
solidarity, and indirectly to the growth of the Liberal outlook in India. Wherever its influence
reached, men shook away the crippling bonds of anachronistic custom and tradition, the ‘inferiority’
complex born of centuries of slavery and inertia, and acquired a new confidence in their ancient
culture and in themselves. -Fite great founder of the Arya Samaj was the first, long before even the
greatest of our politicians, to speak of absolute Swaraj, a national language, a national system of

53
education, as conditions precedent to India’s progress. The political and social Liberalism of the day
ultimately found its consummation and climax in these ideas first propounded by the great Swami.

The third great religious movement that interests us in the present context is the Ramkrishna-
Vivekananda movement. What distinguished this movement from the others is the catholicity of Shri
Ramkrishna’s outlook, his absolute conviction of the identity of all religious experience. and the
truth of all the great religions. “Wherever I look,” said he.

“I sec men quarrelling in the name of religion. Hindus, Mohammedans. Vaishnavas and the rest, but
they never reflect that He. who is called Krishna, is also called Shiva and bears the name of Primitive
Energy, Jesus and Allah as well —the same Rama with a thousand names”) Thus, he personified the
spirit of religious toleration which has been the ‘cry soul of Hinduism. Vivekananda carried his
Master’s message of the Vedanta to the West, was hailed as “undoubtedly” the greatest figure in
the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893, won the admiration and allegiance of Prof. Max.
Muller, Miss Margaret Noble and a host of minor people, and returned home convinced that

“the very dust of India (was) holy, and (India was) the holy land—the place of pilgrimage, the
°Firtha.”2

The home-coming of Swami Vivekananda was an event of national importance, and a veritable
personal triumph.

1 The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna, 11, p. 248.

2 The Life of Swami Vivekananda by his Eastern & Western disciples. Advaita Ashram, Mayawati (4th
ed. 1949, p. 453).

He was asked to address monster meetings wherever he went —a phenomenon of Indian public life
so familiar now but very novel at the time. Educated India realised through the achievements of this
young Sadhu abroad the greatness of their own culture and religion, He spoke to them of how their
ancient faith was the very bedrock of their national vitality, and how it could be made the
foundation of a glorious future for the motherland. Above all, Vivekananda founded on May 1, 1897
the Ramakrishna Mission to preach the gospel of the Master, to establish a fellowship of the Faiths,
and to serve the ‘Daridra Narayan’. namely, God in the person of the Poor, the Sick and the
Unfortunate. The Swami declared that he wanted India to have a “Vedantic heart in an Islamic
body”. He preached to his countrymen the message of the Upanishads, “Arise! Awake! and stop not
until the goal is reached”.1 He wanted India to be virile, attacked ‘don’t touchism’, and called all to
strive in the service of the masses as the supreme means of their personal salvation. The India of his
dreams was to be rooted in its glorious past, drawing its vitality from that living source, but to work
as a titan to banish ignorance, poverty and suffering from its midst. Schools, hospitals, social service,
the monastic order were all to be the dedicated means of national and individual self-realisation
alike.

It is clear that the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda move-ment has played a vital part in the evolution of
Indian nationalism and Indian Liberalism alike. Like the Arya Samaj, but on the basis of a deeper
catholicity, the movement nourished the sense of nationality, the urge to national reconstruction
and the spirit of social reform and social service in the country. It interpreted Hinduism afresh as a

54
rational and practical way of life. It furthered social solidarity by its conviction of the truth of every
great faith. Its

Swami Virekananda’s Works, 2nd ed., 1919, Cal., p. 3.11.

missionary zeal for social service transcending the limits of caste, creed and colour has been another
of its great contri-butions. Lastly, it won the respect of the West for the faith and culture of India,
and so brought the East and the West to a more intimate understanding of each other.

Among the minor religious movements of the period, Theosophy also occupies an important place.
Its real work in India began after 1893 when Mrs. Annie Besant joined it. This gifted and notable
agnostic and social worker from the West adopted Hinduism as her religion, and became one of the
foremost advocates and popularisers of its beliefs and doctrines. She warned Indians that religion
was not to be identified with a narrow and unprogressive orthodoxy, but should serve as a great
sheltering tree whose “roots are deep-ly struck into the past” but whose branches “spread far and
wide and shelter all progressive movements”) She wanted Hinduism to “become a unifier, instead of
a divider, and again assert her glory as the most liberal of religions, the model of an active spirituality
which inspires intellectual vigour, moral purity and national prosperity”.2 In 1898, she founded the
Central Hindu College at Banaras to inculcate these ideas among the younger generation of Indians
and it soon became a centre for the spread of a progressive Hindu-ism. The Theosophists set
themselves against early marriages, intemperance, caste rigidity, and actively promoted swadeshi,
foreign travel and international contacts. Mrs. Annie Besant rose in politics to be President of the
Indian National Congress in 1917, and organised the Home Rule movement in 1916-18. “In politics,”
she wrote, “1 worked more in England than in India, well knowing that until pride in India was
aroused, pride in her past and hope for her future, until social self-respect and independence were
awakened, no strong basis existed for political liberty”.8 Theosophy thus further

1 Annie Besant: ‘The Future of Indian Politics’, (Theosophy Publishing House, Bombay, 1922), p. 41.

“‘a Ibid., p. 85.

renewed faith in Hinduism among the educated classes, im-pressed them with the wealth of their
ancient culture, and thus fortified national self-respect and national self-confi-dence.

Thus, it can be asserted with a fair measure of certainty that all the religious movements of the
Renaissance-Brahmoism, Arya Samaj, the Ratnakrishna-Vivekanand movement, the Theosophy—
while differing in emphasis on different aspects of a reinterpreted Hinduism were yet united in their
common “National” outlook and emphasis on social reform and social service. Behind the facade of
politics, they all exercised a deep formative influence on the Liberal mind of India and inspired the
activities of the Indian Liberals in varied fields of national service.

Muslim Awakening: Something like this was also hap-pening among the Muslims of India too, for it
would have been strange indeed if they had been left untouched by the powerful forces of change
then operating vigorously in India. They came under the influence of these forces later than the
Hindus, as they did nurse a hostility to the English and to the new English education until long after
the Mutiny. At first, the Muslim re-awakening assumed a revivalist form, and was under the
influence of the Wahabi movement of Arabia. Later, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian (1839-1908)
claiming to be the promised Mandi, advocated a thorough cleansing of Islam by giving up un-Islamic

55
customs, such as “book worship, letter worship, mulla worship, pir worship.... (which) were so many
fetters on the Musahnan’s soul keeping it in a state of perpetual slavery”.1

It was, however, the Aligarh movement started by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan of Aligarh (1817-1898)
which most

1 Muhammad Yakub Khan, ‘Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Man’ Quoted by Dr. Bhagwan Dass in an
article “On Vaidika Dharnia” in Dayanand Commemoration, Vol. 1933, p. 92.

vigorously influenced the Muslims of India during this period. Sir Sayyid-worked to win the Indian
Muslims to the side of the British and set up the M.A.O. College at Aligarh to provide the best type of
English education to young Indian Muslims. By pen and tongue, he exhorted them to give up bad
customs and undertake social reform. The Aligarh movement stands discredited today for having
assiduously preached communalism and the segregation of Indian Muslims from the national
movement. But, at this place, we are only interested in noting that in practically all the Muslim
revivalist movements of the period, and the Aligarh movement in particular, there was the same
urge for socioreligious reform as among the Hindus.

These movements stemmed the rising tide of occidental-ism in India, and “strengthened the moral
fibre against the seduction of fashions”, they “facilitated social reforms and assisted the
reconciliation of some modern conceptions with the time-honoured schemes of thought”,’ and they
provided a source of inspiration, a quickening of energies, calculated to foster a movement for
freedom and self-Government.2

Beni Prasad: ‘The Hindu Muslim Question’, p. 24.

56
CHAPTER IV: THE FIRST PHASE OF INDIAN LIBERALISM AND ITS
CIL1RACITRISTIC FEATITRES
‘The foregoing chapters of this hook have, it is to be hoped, clarified the ideology and the activities
of the pioneers of political Liberalism in India, and also adequately explained the formative
influences that shaped its thought and work. The contemporary Indian Renaissance further enriched
and reinforced the Liberal ideology, and shaped its characteristic activities increasingly after 1870 so
that it may be safely asserted that Indian Liberalism came thereafter to possess a definite character
and distinctive aims of its own.

Rational and Secular Outlook: Like their compeers of the West, of course, Mimi group of Liberals
pinned their faith to reason as the main guide in social activity. They firmly believed in the possibility
of progressive improvement of the social and political order by the exercise of reason and common
sense in human affairs. Despite the active pre-occupation of India with questions of religious reform
at the time. the Indian Liberals throughout maintained a secular outlook in politics and whole-
heartedly worked to establish social equality which, indeed, even the contemporary religious
reformers, like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Swami Vivekananda.
emphasized equally strongly. Untouchability was condemned by all the great leaders of the Indian
Renaissance. Indeed, the importance that the Indian Liberals attached to Social Reform distinguished
them from contemporary British Liberalism maily perhaps because the problem of social equality
had ceased to exist in European countries, in exactly the same form as in India specially after the
French Revolution. From Raja Ram Mohan Roy onwards, they devoted themselves to the task of
social reform with the fervour of a religious mission.

Dignity of the Individual: The dignity of the indivi-dual thus received a powerful emphasis in the
Liberal scheme of life. Ranade exhorted: “Revere all human authority. pay your respects to all
prophets and all revelations, but never let this reverence and respect come in the way of the
dictates of conscience. the Divine command in us.”‘ The I,iberals started a crusade against all forms
of restraints upon the liberty of the individual in society and the state. Ranade said that “the work of
Reform is really the work of Liberation—liberation from the restraints imposed upon an essentially
superior religion, law and polity, institutions and customs, by our surrender to the pressure of mere
brute force for selfish advancement.”2

An All-round Development: “The liberation that has to be sought is not in one department of life. or
in one sort of activity, or in one sphere of thought, but it is an all-round work in which you cannot
dissociate one activity from another.”3 In practical working, this quest of liberation exhibited itself in
their comprehensive activity to secure social, religious, economic and political liberty for their
people. They made passionate pleas for freedom of speech, of the press, and of association in
various forms.

National Perspective: Further. as the century advanced the Indian Liberals began to draw their
inspiration increasingly from the contemporary gospel of Nationalism and to champion the cause of
a United Indian Nation. They aspired to enable their 350 million countrymen to hold their heads high
among the free nations of the world by securing

Address at the ,Amraoti Session of the National Social Conference (Year 1897), p. 11 (Appendix A).

57
2 Address at Sixth Anniversary of Modern Hindu Social Reform Association (December 28, 1898).

Ranade: Commemoration address ‘The Telang School of Thought’; at the Hindu Union Club, Bombay,
1895.

their rightful place in the Government of their own country. They worked to create ‘a Government of
laws’ not of men—to exclude all sorts of favouritism and discrimination and to have a representative
national parliament of the country functioning as the fountain-head of authority in the land.

Liberal Methodology: A distinctive feature of their method of work may be noted: namely, their faith
in purely constitutional agitation and rigid rejection of direct of revolutionary action as a means of
achieving their objectives. The work of the pioneers of Indian Liberalism, as shown above, had, so to
speak, sanctified this methodology, but even otherwise it was to be expected that the Indian Liberals
could not have acted differently. With their early indoctrination in British History and its processes in
the new schools and colleges, they looked upon it as an axiom of political philosophy that “liberty
progresses from precedent to precedent”. With their close contacts with British Liberals and their
conviction of the basical sincerity of British sympathy with their cause, the Indian Liberals had not
the slightest doubt that if Indian public opinion could be sufficiently energised and made adequately
vocal, it would merely remain a question of time for them to realise their limited objectives of purely
administrative reforms with British co.-operation. The course of British politics between 1846 and
1874 lent further strength to this conviction. A Britain which sympathised with every wave of
nationalism on the Continent from Poland to Italy during the regimes of Palmerston and Russell, and
which did not hold to flouting local sentiments even in such lands. as Egypt or the Transvaal, could
not possibly ignore Indian public opinion if expressed in a moderate, reasonable and statesman-like
form.

Historical Outlook: Again, the Indian Liberals had always a vivid sense of history. While, on the one
hand, they did not want to sever their connection with the past, they had also a few illusions about
it. They wished to rope

together all the fibres of Liberalism in their ancient heritage to be utilized to bind together the new
social order based upon the concepts of individual liberty and civic and social equality. Ranade
declared that “we have not to unlearn our entire past—certainly not—the past which is the glory
and wonder of the human race.” Dwarkanath Mister exhorted that in all future advance “the present
mould be brought into harmony with the past, and only out of the transformation thus effected
could arise a system improved and not disfigured by alteration”.’

At the same time, they were fully conscious of the demoralisation that had come to afflict Indian
society during the great 18th century anarchy to dream of any rapid progress in either social or
political rehabilitation. They were convinced of both the value and the necessity of the orthodox
Liberal principle of the “inevitability of gradualness”. The failure of India’s first War of Independence
(1857-58) was a reminder to the second generation of Indian Liberals that no trial of arms was
possible with their British rulers. Nevertheless, the moral emasculation of the nation and the crying
economic and administrative evils of the British regime called for vigorous protest and their early
removal. The masses, immersed in ignorance and poverty, divided and disunited, could not be
expected to share or support their labours. Only the intelligentsia could take up this struggle, expose
the wrong, appeal to the British sense of justice and fairplay, formulate public demands and ask for

58
redress, and thankfully accepting whatever might be conceded, press unhaltingly for more. Thus
would public opinion in India be energised and built up. This, therefore, became their method of
political work in the years to come.

1 Ranade’s address at the 6th Anniversary of the Madras Hindu Social Reform Association,
December 28, 1898.

I Dinbandhu Sanyal: ‘Life of Dwarkanath Mitra’, p. 143.

Liberal Organisations: The progress of Indian Liberalism after the era of Raja Ram Mohan Roy may be
measured from the number of public associations which were founded after his death. One of the
earliest of these was the Zemindar Association of Calcutta founded in 1837 to safeguard the
interests of Zemindars, and counting among its members Prasantia Kumar Tagore. It, however,
embraced “people of all description without reference to caste, country or coinplexion”,’ and
proposed to car on its work in a constitutional manner. Another Association known as the Bengal
British India Society was formed in April 20, 1843 to secure the welfare and advance the interests of
all classes and “to discountenance every effort to subvert legal authority or disturb the peace and
well-being of the Society”.2 Both these associations were merged in the British Indian Associa-tion
formed in Oct. 1851 by Prasanna Kumar Tagore, Rajeudra Lal Mitra and Harish Chandra Mukerji to
express public resentment against the rejection of Mr. Bethune’s Bills for the trial of European
offenders by Molussil Courts instead of the Supreme Court in Calcutta only.

The Association also made a representation to Parliament on the eve of the renewal of the Charter
in 1853 for reforms in the Judiciary, reduction of taxes, relief from monopolies, appointment of
Indians to higher administrative posts, and encouragement of education and of indigenous
industries. It also demanded the setting up of a legislature in India of a popular character. It set up
branches in Oudh and Madras in 1851. and so must be credited with having an “All India” outlook
from the beginning.

These organisations were, however, primarily ‘class’ organisations, and their ‘loyalist’ character was
exhibited prominently after the upheaval of 1857 when they began to

C. 17. Andrews c G. Nfukerji: ‘The Rise and Growth of the Congress’. (Allen k Unwin, London, 1938),
p. 98.

2 Speeches of Raja Rajendra Lal Mitra, edited by Rai Jogesh Mitra (S. K. Lahiri, Calcutta, 1892), p. 25.

function mainly as organs of the landed interest, and so could not be fully acceptable to the
educated middle class.

This consciousness led to the foundation of the Indian Association in 1876 in Bengal by Surendra
Nath Banerji “with the object of organizing a system of active political pro-paganda throughout the
country, and to rouse the people to a sense of political unity and concerted activity.’ The Asso-
ciation sought to promote the ‘Liberal ideals of (a) creating a strong public opinion, (b) combining all
Indians for political action, (c) promoting friendly feelings between Hindus and Muslims and (d)
bringing the masses into the national movements.2 It was under the auspices of this Association that
Surendra Nath toured the country in 1876.2 It protested vigorously against Lytton’s Vernacular Act
of 1878.

59
Similar bodies came into existence in the other Presi-dencies during the period. Dadabhai Naoroji
and Juggan-natli Sankarsett founded the Bombay Association in 1851, and two of its prominent
members, Sir Mangaldas Nathu-bhoy and Naoroji Fardunji, fought sturdily for the setting up of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation.’ It was, however, superseded in January 1885 by the Bombay
Presidency Association organised by Tyabji, Pherozcshah and Telang. Madras was slower, and the
first really Liberal association there came into being only in 1884 when the Madras Mahajan Sabha
was set up. Its work was actively supported by the “Hindu” founded in 1878 by Anand Charlu,
Rangiah Naidu and C. Subramania Iyer.

The Deccan Sabha and the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha also need notice in this connection specially as
the latter became by and by the main forum of Ranade for his comprehensive

I A. C. Mazumdar: ‘Indian National Evolution’ (2nd edition, 1915), pp. 29-30.

2 S. N. Banerji: ‘A Nation in Making’ (1925), p. 42.

8 See Chapter III of this book—pp. 73-74.

*’See D. E. Wacha: ‘The Rise and Growth of Municipal Government’ (Natesan, 1915).

schemes of social reform, and through its journal, the main channel of Liberal propaganda in
Maharashtra.

All these associations had fairly wide influence but their outlook and scope were provincial rather
than national,’ and they worked to obtain specific ‘reforms’ rather than to work for more general
political changes in the country.’ Meanwhile, the agitation over the filbert Bill and Surendranath’s
imprisonment in 1883 enhanced the national consciousness of political wrongs, and it began to be
widely realised that a ‘national’ organisation to voice the country’s political grievances and to
canalise public opinion was necessary, and this led to the foundation of the Indian National Congress
in 1885.

The Birth ol The Indian National Congress: The official historian of the Congress has stated that “it is
shrouded in mystery as to who originated this idea of an All India Gongress”.3 Several versions of
this great event have been given by scholats. “No Indian”, said Mr. Gokhale in London in 1913,
“could have started the Indian National Congress.-4 A. C. Mazuindar says that ‘men’ and ‘materials’
were ready for a national organisation. “It only required

the genius of an expert architect That architect was

found in A. O. Hume C. F. Andrews says,

the main initiative of the first Congress had....come from Hume.”6 Hume, on his part, denied
any personal initiative in the matter and said that “it was the outcome of the labours of a
body of cultured men mostly born natives of India who.. .. banded themselves together to-
labour silently

A. C. Mazumdar: ‘Indian National Evolution’, p. 7. 2 Ibid, p. 7.

“ Dr. Pattabhi Sitaranhi),ya: ‘The History of the National Congress’, Vol. I, 1946, p.

60
*Quoted by Sir W. Wedderburn in Allan O. Hume (T. Fisher Unwin, 1913), p. 63.

5 A. C. Mazumdar: ‘Indian National Evolution’, p. 45.

6 C. F. Andrews & G. Mookerjee: ‘The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India’, p. 130.

for the good of India.’’’ Hume was brought up in the Li-beral traditions of the Manchester School,
and as his papers clearly show, apprehended a “most terrible revolution”‘ due to the critical agrarian
situation in India and the activities of secret societies and conspirators, and wanted to direct that
agitation into constitutional channels. Responsible Liberal leaders were themselves of the same
view. Surprisingly enough. the then Viceroy, Lord Dufferin, also was sympathetic. Hume thought that
the leading Provincial associations enumerated above should carry on political work and the All India
National onion should concentrate on social reform. But Lord Dufferin felt that there was no organ in
India functioning as ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ as in England, and so it would be desirable that
Indian politicians should meet annually and point out to the Government in what respects the
administration was defective and how it could be improved!’ While he advised that no high
Government officials should function within it, he himself invited the members of the Second
Congress held at Calcutta to a garden party and his example was later followed by some of the
provincial Governors also.

Thus. Dadabhai Naoroji was not wrong in describing the Congress as “the child of British rule”.’
Blessed by the heads of the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy and supported by all the prominent Liberal
Leaders. the National Congress came into being in 1885. The Hon’ble W. C. Bonerji, presiding over its
first meeting at Bombay, classified its aims and objects as follows: (a) The promotion of personal
intimacy and friend ship amongst all the more earnest workers in our country’s cause in the different
parts of the Em pire.

Hume’s Speech at Allahabad on April 30, 1888.

2 Wedderburn: ‘A. O. Hume’, p. 80.

3 V. S. Srinivas Sastri: ‘Thumb-nail Sketches’ (1946), pp. 61-63.

4 Masani: ‘Dadabhai Naoroji’ (Allen & Unwin, 1939), p. 297.

(b) The eradication by direct friendly intercourse of all possible race, creed or provincial
prejudices amongst all lovers of our country, and the fuller development and consolidation of these
sentiments of national unity that had their origin in their beloved Lord Ripon’s ever memorable
regime.

(c) The authoritative record, after this has been carefully elicited, by the fullest discussion of the
matured opinions of the educated classes in India on some of the more important and pressing of
the social questions of the day.

(d) The determination of the lines upon and me-thods by which, during the next twelve months.
it is desirable for native politicians to labour in the public interest”)

61
A casual glance at thew aims and objects reveals the character of the Congress at its birth. The
movement was confined to the educated classes alone and did not yet appeal to the masses. It
made no distinction between Hindus, Mus

lims, Christians, Parsecs or other religious communities but

voiced forth the wishes of all Indians. It voiced the grati

tude of a beholden nation to the measure of good will shown by Englishman in authority or
otherwise. Expressions of indebtedness to the English nation marked the reiterations of all Liberals
of the age. It purposely avoided the phrase ‘political reforms’ and employed the phrase `social
questions’, to disarm the possible comment that the Congress was a ‘nest of conspirators and
disloyalists’. It helped the veteran leaders of the country to chalk out a programme and explore how
best the interests of the country could be served. All that it demanded was that the basis of the
Government should be widened and that the people should have their proper and legitimate share
in it.

Early Vicissitudes: Official attitude towards the Congress, however, changed violently about 1888,
and the Anglo-Indians, the Parsees and the Mohammedans

I Congress Presidential Addresses, G. A. Natesan, 1934, p. 3.

also appeared to look upon it with hostility. Dadabhai wrote to Wacha (December 20, 1888) that
such an attitude on the part of the Parsecs would be “suicidal” and that “we are Indians and India is
our mother country, and we can only sink or swim with and as Indians”.1 The Anglo-Indians looked
upon the Congress as the enemy of British Rule in India. Even Lord Dufferin began to feel that
Congress was helping “to excite the hatred of the people against the public servants of the Crown in
this country”.2 Some measure of success in the attempts of the Congress to enlist the sympathy and
the active co-operation of the Muslims also alarmed the Government. Above all. the success of
Dadabhai and Flume in England in enlisting the support of British Liberals like William Hunter, Sit-
Louis Mallet, W. S. Caine and the socialist leader H. H. Hyndman and a number of M.Ps. and the
great Gladstone’s admonition that “it would not do for us to treat with contempt or even with
indifference, the rising aspirations of this great people”,2 seemed to have increased this alarm of the
Conservative Gover»ment. They perhaps did not expect that Congress would prove so popular and
so effective so soon. The growing aloofness of the Muslims was even more of an ominous portent. It
is generally held that this aloofness was caused by bureaucratic intrigues and to a great extent this
seems to be true.* But, perhaps the causes went deeper. The social and economic condition of the
Indian Muslims had been steadily deteriorating in the first half of the 19th century due to the
liquidation of Muslim Rule in India and their own

Masani: ‘Dadabhai Naroji’, p. 301.

2 St. Andrews’ Day Dinner Speech—Calcutta, Nov. 30, 1888. Banerji: ‘Indian Constitutional
Documents’, Vol. 11. pp. 91-99. He was referring to statements in 2 pamphlets appended to the
Report of the Madras Congress Session 1887: One a Congress Catechism by Veer Raghavachariar
attacking absentee landlordism and advocating establishment of representative government in
India.

62
“ Quoted by Masani in Dadabhai Naoroji, p. 304.

Sec the ‘History of the Muslim League’ by Dr. Lal Bahadur (1954), p. 19.

indifference to the new opportunities. The British rulers also suspected them of disloyalty and Altaf
Husain Hali writes that after the Mutiny, ‘the Musaimans came under the special shadow of the
British Government, so much so that even Sayyid Ahtnad, at first lost hopes, beyond repair, and
made up his mind to settle in some other Islamic Country.’1

As stated in the previous chapter, however, Sir Sayyid Ahrnad and the “Aligarh Movement” that he
sponsored, al-tered all this, but the upshot of all their activity was gradually to divide the Hindus and
Muslims into two separate political camps. The difference of historical outlook between the two
communities, the concentration of Sir Sayyid on narrow communal objectives which he thought
could only be achieved by co-operation with the Government, the influence exercised by Englishmen
like Beck. Morrison and Archbold on Sir Sayyid and the fear that I he success of the Congress would
mean the government of the Hindu majority and their permanent subjection to Hindu rule which
was sedulously encouraged by the Government—all help to explain Muslim indifference and even
hostility to the Congress.

Despite the meticulous care taken by the Congress to maintain and emphasize the national
character of the Cong-ress, the demand of the Congress for “representative govern-ment” pressed in
1886 and 1887 “filled some of the Muslims with apprehension”.2 Besides, the Muslims, as Sir Sayyid
never tired of pointing out, were nearer in religious ideas to the Christians than to the Hindus and he
hoped that “the Christian civilisation, the product of Christian religion, in its day of power could
conic to the help of Islamic civilisation in its own day of weakness”.” This belief of Sir Syed and his
concentration on narrow communal aims may be said to

Hayati fawaid, p. 111, quoted by Dr. Lal Bahadur in the ‘Muslim League’, p. 3.

2 W. C. Bonnerjee’s Speech—Proceedings I. N. C., 1887, p. 7.

3 Andrew,: ‘The Renaissance in India’ (Indian ed., Madras, 1913) p. 86.

show the essentially ‘illiberal’ character of the Aligarh movement, and hence the impossibility of any
effective approximation between it and the Liberal Congress.

Congress Activities: Meanwhile, undeterred by offi-cial frowns or sectional opposition, the Congress
engaged itself in active agitation against the economic policy of the Government. ‘This matter had
attracted the attention of Indian Liberals from the very beginning.’ Dadabliai Naoroji, Gokhale,
Surendra Nath Banerji and 1). E. Wacha now became its chief exponents in the seventies and
thereafter M. G. Ranade functioned as the chief theorist and economic “policy maker” of the Liberal
party. To Ranade, the Liberals owed the scientific formulation of their demands. He is the founder of
what has since come to be called as “Indian Economics”. The factual substratum of Ranade’s views
was of course provided by several predecessors, and by nobody in larger measure than by Dadabhai
Naoroji whose “Poverty and Un-British Rule in lndia”—a bulky volume of 675 pages—was published
in 1901, and became the vide mecum of Indian politicians of subsequent generations.

63
The main theme of Dadabhai Naoroji’s criticism of British rule in India was that it was responsible for
the growing impoverishment of India. He elaborately explained how out of the £ 50 in. raised
annually as revenue in India, sonic 12 m. was “drained” off to England causing a serious depletion of
the country’s capital wealth year after year.’ He arrived at the conclusion that the average annual
per capita income of Indians was less than 27/3 d.2 He attributed this deplorable state of affairs to
comprehensive defects in the financial administration of the country, heavy taxation, the “drain” of
capital, a wrong commercial and fiscal policy,

‘See Chapter II, p. 45 and Chapter III, p. 68 seq.

2 Evidence before the Select Committee on East India Finances (1871), pp. 181-182. Also his paper
on ‘Poverty in India’ (1876).

8 ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’, p. 2.

and heavy administrative charges in India and England. These views were presented in his evidences
before Parliamentary Committees mid Commissions and numerous speeches awl pamphlets both in
India and England, and helped to educate the British public and Indian public opinion arousing a
lively interest in the problem of the economic exploitation of India.

Dadabhai pleaded consistently for more lenient taxation, economy in expenditure, equitable
adjustment of financial relations between India and England, a re-examination of Government’s land
revenue policy and administration and the increased employment of Indians. both in the formulation
and implementation of financial policy.’ This led him on to advocate better utilisation of our vast
cultivable waste lands, more active provision of government. help for industrial development and
more attention to national education.2

Ranade and the Birth of Indian Economics’’: The theoretical justification for the views was provided
by NI. Ranade. Ile declared that it was wrong to suppose that the same economic truths could be
applied to all countries or to the saute country, at different times.3 The Classical Political Economists
like Adam Smith, Ricardo, Nassau Senior, Mill, Mc Culloch and .Malthus held that the basis of
national economy was the individual, whose activities promoted national interests by contributing to
his own, and so the utmost freedom of contract and competition that can provide free mobility to
labour and capital, is calculated to promote national wealth. Ranade declared that these
assumptions could not be applied to India where “an average individual is, to a large extent, the very
antipodes of the economical man”.4

Evidence before the Select Committee on East India Finances (181). Appendix D in Dadabhai’s
Speeches and Writings, pp. 163— ‘80.

2 Ibid, pp. 163-180.

“ Ranade: ‘Essays on Indian Economics’, pp. 8-10.

4 Ibid., p. 10.

He pointed out that caste, custom and the state were more effective in India as regulators of
economic activity than free competition, and pursuit of wealth is not the sole or the main objective
of the people. Stagnation and dependence, depression and poverty were old legacies and inherited

64
weaknesses. “To these must be added drain of wealth and talents which foreign subjection has
entailed in the country”.1 He controverted the view that the Tropics should specialise in agriculture
and the Temperate Zone in transport and manufactures by pointing out that the tropical lands sent
their manufactures in the past to the latter lands, and that it was only proper that manufactures
should spring up where the raw materials grew to effect a double economy in time and cost. He
asserted that the former view con-demned the poor to grow poorer and helped the rich to become
richer. He pointed out that India’s increasing ruralisation under British rule was retrograde
development and that like the Dutch, the British Government in India should undertake to develop
industries allied to agriculture, such as sugar-refining, oil-pressing, tobacco-curing and silk-rearing.2

Ranade justified State action in the economic sphere in India by pointing out that even in England,
factory legislation, recognition of trade unions, the Poor Law and Irish Land Settlements were
instances of the reaction against laissez-faire. As the sole landlord and the biggest capitalist in India,
the Government should provide “support and guidance by its credit and superior organisation in
pioneering industrial undertaking or subsidising private co-operative effort”,3 and utilise indigenous
resources to organise state factories.

Ranade’s teachings thus equipped Indian Liberalism with an economic policy of its own based upon
India’s his

Ranade: ‘Essays on Indian Economics’, p. 25.

2 Ibid, p. 31,

3 Ibid; p. 33.

torical evolution, present needs, and the assimilation of all that Western Economic developments
had to offer. He did not uphold doctrinaire economics of the Manchester School and divorce theory
from practice. The Indian Liberals’ economic views, therefore, were not based upon any belief in
laissez-faire and earlier than the British Liberal Party, they favoured State action to promote national
economic develop ment. Ranade was aware that India’s poverty was “an old, a very old inheritance”
and not solely due to British Rule,’ and as capital was insufficient or shy, he wanted the Government
to supply capital for industrial development directly or indirectly through local bodies or co-
operative societies at a low rate of interest, and help to rejuvenate the country’s ma-nufacturing
skill. The ‘realism’ of this policy was its chief and original merit.

Home Charges: One of the chief and specific charges of these Liberal leaders against the British
Government was the injustice of the “Home Charges”. It was the burden of Dadabliai’s sad song to
explain the implications and the injustice involved in these charges. In his fourth note to the Welby
Commission of Feb. 15, 1896 Dababhai submitted: “Englishmen employed in India, and Indians
employed in England—let there be sonic fair and reasonable apportionment between the two
countries—taking, as much as possible, into consideration their respective benefits and capacity of
means”. Gokhalc, before the same Commission, observed that in respect of the India Office charges,
Army charges, political expenditure beyond the Indian frontier equitable apportionment was
necessary. Concluding his evidence in chief before the Welby Commission on April 12 and 13, 1897,
Gokhale said, “Lastly, if England thinks that a certain number of European officers and a certain

Ranade: ‘Essays on Indian Economics’, p. 195.

65
2 A note submitted to W. Commission; Dadabhai’s Speeches and writings (II Ed., Natesan, 1917), p.
340.

strength of the European army must always be maintained in India, she must be prepared to pay a
fair share of the cost shown in India for the purpose, the maintenance of British supremacy in India
being a matter affecting the most vital interests of England.’”

The same points were suggested in the Minority Report2 of the Welby Commission that all ills could
be cured only if the costly European agency of British administration was replaced by efficient
Indians. The signatories enumerated both the main and the incidental advantages of larger
employment of Indians in the service of their own country.3 They posited that the British supremacy
in India was an Imperial interest, so Britain should contribute to the cost of the “irreducible
minimum” of the European agency.’ For ordinary expenses they suggested: “Britain should pay for
all the British employed upon India’s work in Britain: India should pay for all Indians employed in
India; and that, as regards the British employed in India and Indians employed in Britain there should
be a compromise under which the expenses should be shared equally.”‘

In regard to currency, a potent factor of economic policy, the Liberal Indian economists observed
that the financial embarrassments of the country were not due to the defective system of currency
but due to the home-charges. They contended that exchange would never be a disturbing factor,
were the gold obligations of the Government non-existent, but the latter had mounted up very high.
For well-nigh a century the expenditure in England on account of India had

Gokliale’s evidence before the W. C., p. 56 (Appendices G. A. Natesan & Co., Madras-3rd ed., 1916).

2 Dadabhai with Wedderburn & Caine submitted a dissentient report on the Indian Expenditure
Commission, popularly known as the Welby Commission (1897), Part IV, London, 1900, pp. 151-190.

3 Report of the W. C., p. 160 and p. 181. *Ibid., p. 181.

‘ Ibid., pp. 186-187.

Commerce, May 11, 1893, quoted by Masani—Dadabhai, p. 331.

gone on steadily increasing. By a mistaken policy the Indian Government had incurred many a state
obligation in gold while collecting its revenue in silver. It discharged railway interest and pensions to
civil and military officers in gold and it made purchases of stores and articles in gold. These home
charges continued to grow up. The sterling liabilities—a portion of which had been foisted on India—
had swollen immensely. Owing to the aggressive external policy and border expeditions military
expenditure had also mounted up. It was the combined pressure of these two burdens which had
proved to be unbearable. With such growing expenditure, exchange thereon grew apace.

In 1893, the Amended Coinage Act was passed by the legislature at Simla. The mints were closed for
the free coinage of silver rupees and the value of the rupee was fixed higher than the value of the
metal used in it. On the recommendation of another Commission of 1898 the gold value of the
rupee was raised to Is. 4d. The Liberals contended that “What Government has done is that it has
forced the poor ryot to pay one-third more taxation in a fraudulent way than he was liable for, or
compelled the poor ryot to part with one-third more of his produce to provide Government with a

66
higher valued coin The tax-payer is (forced to part with the full amount of the produce to buy the
£19,000,000 and by the jugglery of using the rupee of a higher value, dust is thrown in the eyes of
the people that saving is made by them, as if what is said to have been saved has rained from the
sky.”‘ Speaking from the chair at a conference of all the Indian residents in England in St. Martins
Townhall, London, on June 2, 1893, Dadabhai said that the real cause of the terrible evils of poverty,
famine, plague, false currency, etc. was the bleeding of India and the bleeding was further increased
by the fall in exchange or rise in gold; that “until this most deplorable bleeding of India is stopped
there is little chance, if any, of saving India and the British Empire from serious disorders or
destruction.”‘

In brief, it was the conviction of the Indian Liberals that mere tinkering or tampering with the
exchange would not solve the problem of the Government of India or the people of the country. It
was essential that the costly policy of the employment of the foreign agency in all its ramifications
was reversed.

Commercial Policy: In regard to free trade, the Libe-rals were opposed to it unanimously. Gokhale
explained at length the Liberal viewpoint in regard to Free Trade versus Protection.2 In his judgment,
there were two kinds of Protection—right and wrong kinds. The right kind of Protection was that
under which the growing industries of a country received the necessary stimulus and
encouragement they required, but under which care was taken that no influential combinations,
prejudicial to the interests of the general community, came into existence. The wrong kind of
Protection, according to him, was that under which powerful influences and combination and
interests received assistance to the prejudice of the general community, the general tax-payers of
the country. He was confident that the right kind of Protection would do India good. But situated as
India was, Gokhale felt there was no likelihood of its adoption. For the right kind of Protection he
thought; it was necessary that the Government of the country should be conducted in accordance
with the wishes and interests of the people. It would be possible when India would receive the
status of self-governing colonies. Till then the policy

Masani: ‘Dadabhai’, p. 333.

2 Gokhale’s speech in the Imperial Legislative Council on 9th March, 1911, on a resolution
recommending the abolition of Excise duties upon cotton goods manufactured in India. Gokhale
Speeches, pp. 433-36, see also Shahani’s ‘Gokhale’, pp. 275-278.

of Free Trade “was least harmful and safest, and till we are stronger I should not like it to change”.1

This brief survey of the economic policy of Indian Liberals of the period might lead one to imagine
that it was all destructive in nature. It would be a wrong inference. In the Industrial Conference held
at Poona in 1890, Ranade presented a constructive programme for India’s economic uplift. Ranade’s
programme was that we should try to husband our resources to the best of our power instead of
complaining against the economic drain or joining battle with the Government over free trade.
There was, in his judgment, an ample scope for utilisation of our existing resources of natural agents
and capital with our limitless supply of labour. He felt that we should immediately improve by art
and industry our raw wealth of agriculture, that in view of the special circumstances of our country.
adopt the joint stock principle for collective and large undertakings and avail freely of the superior
skill of the foreigners. According to him we had enough capital if we knew how to use it. If we could

67
do that, the State could help us in a number of ways. “The State help,” he said, “is, after all,
subordinate factor in the problem. Our own exertion and our own resolutions must conquer the
difficulties which are chiefly of our own creation”.2

It is clear that this economic criticism by the Liberal Leaders helped the national cause. The Liberals
and through their activities a large section of educated Indians grew more critical of British Rule
than. in earlier days (1869-1885). Secondly, the Indian Liberals developed an economic policy and
programme independent of the British Liberal theory and opinion in purely national matters. In their
criticism they did not lose balance and judgment and all along their outlook was historical as well as
objective

1 Mahar& ‘G. K. Gokhale’, p. 278.

2 Essays on Indian Economics, p. 187.

and empirical. Thirdly, Indian Liberalism was national in its outlook and was aware of the many-
sidedness of the national problem. Fourthly, it was getting nearer to the demand for Swaraj than at
the beginning. Fifthly, their researches and enquiries unearthed materials of incalculable importance
to future scholars and politicians of the country.

Indianisation of Services: The Liberals also addressed themselves to the task of securing wider
employment of Indians in the public services and particularly of the holding of simultaneous
examinations for the I.C.S. both in India and England. They felt that the exclusion of Indians from the
services caused the “moral poverty” of India also, and resulted “in the loss to the country of the
experience and wisdom which come to the people through employment in the administration of
their affairs”.’ The Liberals thought that by simultaneous examinations India would have the benefit
of attracting the best talent of the country to the services and thereby even the backward provinces
or classes would be stimulated by emulation and ambition to spontaneous exertions.2 It was their
conviction that in this way alone Indians could be put on an honestly equal footing with
Englishmen.” Moreover, simultaneous examinations would be a great impulse to educations

With regard to the general ability and character of Indians, Dadabhai produced a paper entitled “the
European and Asiatic Races”.5 It was again through his efforts that on June 2, 1893, a resolution in
support of simultaneous

I Dadabhai’s ‘memorandum to Secretary of State on ‘Moral Poverty’ of India on Nov. 16, 1880.
Appendix D, pp. 189-190 (Dadabhai’s S. & W., 2nd Ed., 1917).

2 Dadabhai’s evidence before the Public Service Commission of 1886. Appendix C, Ibid., p. 147.

3 Dadabhai’s paper read before a meeting of the East India Asso-ciation, London, April 17, 1868,
Ibid., p. 497.

*Fourth Resolution of the I. N. C., 1885.

5 Read before the Ethnological Society, London, March 27, 1886. Dadabhai’s speeches, pp. 555-571.

examinations was passed by the House of Commons but that was not brought into effect. In a
statement to the Welby Commission on Nov. 3, 1897 on the admission of Indians to the Covenanted

68
Civil Service, Dadabhai traced the whole history of the question down to the resolution of 1893. The
note is a mine of information and a record of the profundity of Liberal statesmanship and a
challenge to those who accuse the party of pussilanimity. He successfully exposed the “subterfuges”
and “political hypocrisy” contained in the Acts of 1853 and the Royal Proclamation of 1858. He
deplored, “what faith can the Indians have in any act of Parliament? Today something given,
tomorrow snatched away.” He warned the Britons, “Righteousness alone will exalt a nation; injustice
will bring down the mightest to ruin.”‘ Gokhale and Surendra Nath Banerjea stressed the same point.
Banerjea emphasized in his evidence before the Welby Commission the issue of the wider
employment of Indians in the higher offices and was subjected to a tough cross-examination by Sir
Louis Peile, a member of the Commission. It was Banerjea’s conviction that at the root of all other
Indian problems there lay two—wider employment of Indians and establishment of representative
institutions—and their satisfactory settlement would mean the solution of them all.’ Gokhale said,
“The terms of enactment of 1833 and the Proclamation of 1858 are so explicit that those who now
try to withhold the privileges then assured to us must be prepared to face the painful dilemma of
hypocrisy or treachery.”a

Dadabhai stated before the Welby Commission that they were prepared to retain the highest posts
in the Civil Services for Europeans—such as those of the Viceroy, the Governors,

1 A note submitted to the Welby Commission on Nov. 3, 1897, Ibid., pp. 401-497.

2 Banerjee: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 150.

8 Report of the Proceedings of I.N.C., 1889.

the Commander-in-Chief and the Lieutenant-Governors. He did not see any necessity for giving other
posts to Euro-peans. To be practical he was prepared to part with half the Civil Services, but by
degrees he would like to have the whole.’ In the army, he demanded half the share of expenses to
be paid by the British on account of mutual benefit for the common purpose.2 To a question that
Dadabhai wanted India for Indians, one of the members of the Commission reminded him of the
words of the Prime Minister of Baroda to Roberts on the same subject, saying that it would be like
loosing the bars of the cages of the Zoological garden, mean-ing thereby that there would be
complete anarchy, Dadabhai retorted. “Is this the result of 150 years of British Rule that we are not
so civilized as to preserve law and order?”3

The Liberal demand for open competition,* the same age for the candidates of both the countries,
similar physical fitness tests,” with no distinction of pay, leave and pension” was just, for “public
office is a public trust, to be exercised solely for the public welfare and that offices should be filled
only by those best qualified, their fitness ascertained by proper tests”.I

Demand for Representative Institutions: Nothing captured the imagination of the Indian Liberals
more than Parliamentary methods of government. So since its very birth the Congress advocated
political reforms. At the fourth Congress at Allahabad, in 1888, George

Dadabhai’s evidence before W. C., Appendix A, Dadabhai’s Speeches and Writings, p. 74.

2 Ibid., p. 75.

69
3 Ibid., p. 77.

Dadabhai’s evidence before the Public. Service Commission (qs. 68 to 92), App. C., p. 149.

5 Dadabhai’s evidence before the Public Service Commission, pp. 152-53.

8 Ibid., pp. 154-55.

7 The Third Annual Report of U. S. Civil Commission—quoted in Dadabhai’s evidence before P. S. C.,
Ibid., p. 150.

Yule started the demands of the Congress in regard to the reconstitution of the Councils. He
demanded the ex-pansion of the legislative councils to an extent that would admit of the
representation of the various interests in the country. He said, “We want half the councils to be
elected, the other half to be in the appointment of Government and we are willing that the right of
veto should be with the executive. We also want the right of interpellation”.1 His proposal for cousin
uencies was also moderate. An appeal was made to Bradlaugh who had attended the Bombay
session of the Congress (1889) to introduce a bill in Parliament on the lines suggested by the
Congress. A deputation* was appointed to represent the views of the Congress before the British
public.

The deputationists had an interview with Gladstone and he gave the impression that he would speak
at the second reading of Mr. Cross’s Bill. Surendra Nath Banerjea, while speaking at the Oxford
Union, said that “England is the home of representative institutions; from England as the centre,
representative institutions have spread far and wide until this country has justly been called the
august mother of free nations. The people of India are children of that mother and they claim their
birth-right.2 A more flattering and curious appreciation of the role of the English nation in India
could have hardly been attempted! As the result of these ceaseless labours the Indian Councils Act
of 1892 was passed. Today it may appear to be a mere farce but it could not be regarded at the time
as insignificant and unsubstantial. According to this Act nominated members were increased to a
maximum of 16 in the case of the Impe

1 Presidential Address, 4th I. N. C. (Natesan, Vol. I), p.

• The deputation consisted of Mr. Flume, Sir Pheroz Shah Mehta, Mr. Manmohan Ghosh, Mr. W. C.
Bonnerjee, Mr. Shaffruddin, Mr. Eardly Norton, Mr. R. N. \ludholker and Mr. Surendra Nath
Banerjee. Each member of the deputation was to pay his own expenses.

2 Surendra Nath Banerjee: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 116.

1 Ranade’s Essays on Indian Economics: ‘Local Government in England and India’, p. 233.

rial and of 20 in the case of the Provincial Legislative Councils, and the Governor General was
authorized to make ‘rules under which they could be chosen by election. The members of these
councils were also given the right of interpellations but without the right of supplementaries.
Councils could discuss the budget in general terms, but they could not reduce the demands. Neither
could members move resolutions. Even in these mock assemblies persons like Sir Pheroz Shah
Mehta, Gokhale, Surendra Nath Banerjee, Anand Mohan Bose, C. Vijai Raghavachariar and N.
Subharao Pantulu, Sir Chaman Lal Setalvad, Sir Gokuldass Parikh and Pandit Madan Mohan NIalviya,

70
either at the Centre or in the provincial legislatures, made themselves useful to the country and
gained invaluable experience in parliamentary procedure. It would be uncharitable to minimise the
im- portance of the work of these patriots, even if it did not appear to bear fruit instantaneously. For
it is certain that had a majoriy of them been failures, or had they betrayed a lack of capacity or a
sense of responsibility, or had they not acted in the best interest of the people, there would have
been no Morley-M into Councils in after years.

It was through these Councils that the Liberal leaders kept national issues alive, formed and
moulded public opinion, influenced legislation, exposed Government hypocrisy and appealed to
public opinion in England for support. What India achieved through the passage of these Council
Acts between 1861-1892 was substantial enough to justify the labours of the Liberals.

Local Self-Government: Local self-Government was yet another target of the Liberals. No country in
Europe could present a more self-contained and self-sufficient organisation than the old village
community in India,’ which had now almost disappeared. The Government of India’s Resolution of
1870 started the development of local Self-Government in India. Commit-tees were set up for a
district as a whole. They were nominated and controlled by the Government and composed of
official and non-official members and had an official Chairman. The system introduced in 1871 did
fairly well to improve communications, sanitation and education. But these committees were still
official bodies and popular wishes and feelings had little chance to assert themselves. The effective
beginnings of Local Self-Government were, therefore, the results of the famous resolution of 1882 of
Lord Ripon’s Government, which proposed shortening of the area allotted to the jurisdiction of each
board and restricted the number of the official members to one-third of the whole with a nonofficial
chairman. In compliance with the Resolution, Local Self-Government Acts were passed in different
provinces during 1883-84 to implement the policy contained therein.

S. N. Banerjea, as a member of the Bengal Legislative Council from 1893 to 1901 fought for the
expansion of Local Self-Government. In 1897 two measures, namely, an amendment of the Bengal
Municipal Act and a complete revision of the Calcutta Municipal Act, came up for consideration. S. N.
Banerjea was familiar with the working of these municipal bodies as he had been a chairman of a
mofussil municipality since 1885 and a member of the Calcutta Corporation since the introduction of
the Elective system in 1876. The amending bill sought to deprive the municipality of the rights of
electing its own chairman, and of previous consultation and agreement to any subdivision of its
jurisdiction. S. N. Banerjea condemned these provisions and sent a letter to Hume to see Ripon who
was then a member of the Cabinet to use his influence to annul the reactionary provisions. The
Secretary of State wrote to Sir Charles Elliot, the then Lieut.-Governor, to drop the provision to
which exception had been taken.

The other measure was the Mackenzie Bill, proposed by Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the then Lieut.-
Governor. He said of the Calcutta Corporation that it was an armoury of talk and an arsenal of
delays”. He brought in his bill to emasculate it by oflicialising it. Despite the resignations of 28
Commissioners, the Bill became Act. S. N. Banerjea continued his agitation till he had not only the
new restrictions set aside but the corporation reformed to a large extent, according to his views.’

The improvement of Bombay Municipal administration also owed much to i’elang and Mehta. The
Act of 1865 was amended in 1872 on the basis of proposals contained in a paper read by Mehta at a
special meeting of the Justices on June 30, 1871.2 It suggested an elective basis of the Bench of

71
Justices with a responsible executive officer and a controller of accounts appointed by the Bench.
The constitution outlined by Mehta endured in the main for well-nigh fifty years except that an
amending bill introduced in 1887, greatly improved by Mehta and Telang, gave Bombay “a strong
executive responsible to the Corporation and an enlightened Corporation watchful over its
executive”.’

Gokhale, who was the President of the Poona Corporation, related, in his budget speech of 1905 in
the Imperial Legislative Council, his experience of powerlessness “at present to undertake any large
work of improvement and what a struggle we have to make merely to keep things going.”‘ In a note
submitted to the Royal Commission on Decentralisation, Gokhale said that “the cry of the people
everywhere is that the car of administration should not merely roll over their bodies but that they
themselves should be permit

S. N. Banerjea: ‘A Nation in Making’, pp. 129-130.

2 H. P. Mody: ‘Sir Pherozeshah Mehta’, Vol. I, (Bombay, 1921), p. 61.

3 Ibid., p. 201.

Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 97.

ted to pull at the ropes”.’ He suggested that the local bodies should consist wholly of elected
members and get substantial grants-in-aid from provincial Government.

Justice Ranade was strongly of the opinion that ‘if local Government is not to be a misnomer and a
certain failure’, it should not be limited to conservancy and charitable functions but should be
invested with police and magisterial powers, as was the case in self-governed countries.2

Thus in the field of Local Self-Government the Liberals demanded that the local bodies should have
an elective majority, an elected chairman, relaxation of official control, adequate financial aid to
carry out projects on a large scale, and be charged with magisterial and police functions. They
realised that Local Self-Government was a prelude to national Self-Government and that there was
no better method of political education.

Education: As in other fields, so in education also, Ranade laid down the outline of a national system
of education. In his judgment the whole life, whether of an individual or of a community, was a
struggle. Only those who knew how to adjust themselves to their surroundings could hope to
survive. This adaptation was required in all aspects of human life—physical, intellectual and moral.
Vigour and virility in all these spheres alone would be able to save a nation from dying out. For this
purpose every individual, as every nation, ought to realize its allotted part in the larger scheme of
the world and appreciate the forces at work in the wider world outside, which represented all ,that
was best in human efforts for the elevation and happiness of man.8 This great ideal could only be
realised by a well-planned system of education.

I Gokhale’s note before the ‘Decentralisation Commission’; Gokhale’s Speeches (Appendix), p. 199.

2 Essays on Indian Economics, p. 260.

a Miscellaneous Writings of Justice Ranade (1915), p. 246.

72
He suggested a system which aimed at the harmonious development of the physical, intellectual and
moral aspects of the individual and the community, and ‘unity of different branches of human
progress and unity of all knowledge’.

As a practical idealist he did not impose upon the teachers the seclusion and renunciation of the old
Ashrams but wanted them to work in a spirit of service. He wanted to inculcate in the pupils the
habit of independent thinking and to root out undue submissiveness. Obedience either to tradition
or power was acceptable to him only if it was the dictate of reason and not of blind faith or fear.

In his system of education, there was to be the fullest appreciation of co-operation and co-
ordination in the work of study and research all the world over for it economised effort and created
better understanding. Though an admirer of modern methods, he emphasized that the spirit
animating education must be the same as that’ which inspired the old Rishis.

For the regeneration of the country he wanted the reno-vation of Indian culture, for which the study
of science and development of arts were essential. Being a believer in the unity of human race and in
human progress, he wanted ‘unity, freedom and progress’ to be the characteristics of the new Indian
culture. India could retain the ingredients of her ancient culture and should absorb all that any other
group or system of thought had to offer.

Ranade was in favour of residential colleges because they encouraged corporate thought and action,
so essential for the country.2*

He wanted to reduce the number of examinations and was opposed to their frequency and
hardness. He realised

Miscellaneous Writings of Justice Ranade, p. 246.

2 Ibid., p. 314.

• It is interesting to note that the Residential system recom-mended by Ranade was also
recommended by Dacca University Committee 1912, Ch. XIII, pp. 70-75. In case of examinations also
the above Committee had similar views, p. 48.

the due importance of Indian languages and succeeded in in-cluding them among the optional
subjects of the B. A. examination of the Bombay University.

This broad outline drawn by Ranade was amplified by Gokhale and other Liberal thinkers. Pheroz
Shah Mehta, with the help of some Liberals, started in Bombay in April 1886 a Graduates’
Association in the rooms of the Presidency Association. The Association did pretty good work and
memorialized the university and the Government on all manner of educational questions. As its
President, Mehta deplored that a change had come over the policy of Government with regard to
higher education, particularly in the direction of throttling it gradually by the withdrawal of state
aid”.’ From the same platform Gokhale in 1896 outlined all his future work in the field of education
and pointed out the importance of elementary education. He said: “Who can realize more keenly
than ourselves that the fate of our country is bound up with the spread of education among the
masses?”2

73
In his evidence before the Welby Commission of 1897, Gokhale strongly condemned the neglect of
what was solemnly accepted by the Court of Directors in 1854 as a sacred duty. Taking the figures of
four years between 1891-1895 he pointed out that the Government grant to education in India
showed an increase of only 2 lacs and 18 thousands, whereas during the same period the
Government expenditure in Great Britain increased from 5 millions to £ 9 millions sterling. Gokhale
characterised this difference of treatment as “the difference between children and step-children”.8
Then he pointed out that the population of the school-going

H. P. Mody: ‘Pheroz Shah’, Vol. 1, p. 225.

2 Gokhale’s address at 10th Annual General Meeting of the Bombay Graduates’ Association, quoted
by his biographer T. K. Shahani, pp. 290-91.

3 Gokhale’s evidence before Welby Commission of 1897, pp. 40-41, pp. 148-50 and pp. 182-84
(Natesan, 1916).

age in India was about 35 millions out of whom only about four millions including those attending
private or unaided schools, were under instructions, which meant that “out of every hundred
children of school-going age 88 were growing up in darkness and ignorance and consequent moral
help-lessness”.2

As a member of the Bombay Legislature in 1900 and two years later in the Imperial Legislative
Council, Cokhale lost no opportunity to sponsor the cause of education of all grades.

Gokhale’s bill on compulsory elementary education on March 16, 1911 in the Imperial Council was
objected to by other Liberals, notably by Dadabhai, on the ground that it might cause undesirable
diversion of funds from the support of higher education. Sir Ashutosh Mukerjee and his colleagues
on the syndicate of the Calcutta University had the same objections against Gokhale’s bill. There
were others who objected to it on grounds of compulsion, of weaning children from the side of their
parents, and of raising a labour problem, etc. Gokhale’s defence of primary education was classical.
He pointed out: “Literacy is better than illiteracy any day, and the banishment of a whole peoples’
illiteracy is no mean achievement—it means for them (the masses) a keener enjoyment of life and a
more refined standard of living. It means the greater moral and economic efficiency of the
individual. It means higher level of intelligence for the whole community generally. He who reckons
these advantages lightly may as well doubt the value of light or fresh air in the economy of human
health.”2

Though Gokhale’s proposal was turned down, it im-pressed on the Government the need for mass
education and

Gokhale’s evidence before Welby Commission of 1897, pp. 40-41, pp. 148-50 and pp. 182-84
(Natesan, 1916).

2 Gokhale’s speech on 16th’ March, IN I in the Imperial Legislative Council to introduce a bill to make
better provision for the extension of elementary education in India. Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 608.

74
still more on the Indian leaders who made it a plank of their future programme of liberal progress
and when in power and in possession of an opportunity they tried to do their best to expand primary
education on these lines.

In regard to University education, the views of these leaders were equally clear. Fuller discussion of
their views will be made in Chapter 5. Here it is sufficient to note that they were alive to its
importance. There were five universities—Calcutta University was established on Jan. 24, 1857,
Bombay University on July 18, 1857 and Madras University on Sep. 5, 1857. The Punjab University
and Allahabad University were established in 1882 and 1887 respectively. They were affiliating
bodies. Affiliated colleges provided instructions and presented candidates for examinations. The
increase in the numbers taking advantage of University education was surprisingly great; and on the
financial side, the universities were fairly successful. The recommendation of the Hunter
Commission of 1882 to the effect that no aided college should be required to levy fees at the same
rate as that charged in a neighbouring Government College’,’ helped in the growth of a large number
of second grade colleges in Bengal. They depended on their fees and Government and on account of
this there was a greater expan sion of university education at Calcutta than elsewhere. But the
degree of Calcutta University did not “command res-pect”.’ This rapid expansion was viewed with
alarm by Lord Lansdowne in 1889. This deterioration became more prominent between 1890 and
1900. In the’words of H. R. James, “When university reform came in strong flood in the year 1901, it
did not come too soon”.3

The Liberal leaders were anxious to expand university education for it helped in the evolution of
Liberal ideas

1 Report of the Hunter Commission quoted by Shahani, p. 320.

2 Ibid., p. 320.

a H. R. James: On Fthication and Statesmanship in India, p. 62.

and provided the strength to snap the chains of rigidity of caste and other social evils. University
education stimulated national ideas. Yet already young men coming out of these institutions could
not get jobs. They swelled the ranks of the discontented. Their discontent stung their ideas of liberty
into action.

Moreover, as education increased, opposition to it from conservative groups also softened, which
culminated in the growth of toleration and respect for the views of others, This was why the latter
part of the 19th century was marked by a number of social and religious movements.

Liberals looked forward to the days when such measures of reforms as “a liberal provision of funds
for the encourage-ment of original research and of higher teaching, the institution of an adequate
number of substantial scholarships to enable our most gifted young men to devote themselves to
advanced studies, an improvement in the status and mode of recruitment of the Educational Service
so as to attract to it the best men available, both European and Indian, the simplification of
preliminary tests, with a single stiff exami-nation at the end of the course for ordinary students so as
to discourage cramming as far as possible,”1 could be enacted by the Government.

75
Even here we should not fail to notice the individual differences of emphasis among the Liberals on
different aspects of education. Gokhale applauded the Report of the Education Commission of 1882
on the ground that it recom-mended ‘provision’ for extension and improvement of the elementary
education of the masses,2 and Mehta denounced it because he read in it a Government policy of
throttling

.1 Gokhale’s speech in the adjourned meeting of the Imperial Legislative Council on March 21, 1 the
amended Indian Universities Bill (1904), Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 255.

2 Gokhale’s speech in the Imperial Legislative Council on March 18, 1910 on a resolution of free and
compulsory education, Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 593.

higher education by the withdrawal of state aid.’ This points to the tendency of individualism among
the Liberals and this characteristic of theirs ultimately led to a fundamental weakness of their party.

Other Interests: Other topics touched by the Liberals were the abolition of the India Council, military
training of the Indians, the separation of judicial and executive functions in the administration of
justice, famines, forest laws, Indians abroad and emigration, the education of women and depressed
classes and a host of other subjects. But as these matters assumed more importance somewhat
later, they will be discussed later as occasions occur.

Review: A close analysis of the demands, comments and criticisms made by the Liberals brings into
bold relief their solicitude for national amelioration in almost all spheres of national life and activity.
Only one demand is lacking, namely, the demand for Swaraj. In Europe at this period, all Liberal
movements under foreign governments were at the same time also nationalist movements. This was
because the Liberal movement in India was more of a preparatory and exploratory adventure. This
was in keeping with its equipment and resources. There was no excess about its aims and objectives.
To the Indian Liberals the goodwill of the English nation seemed to be of greater value in the task of
national regeneration than a premature demand for Swaraj for which they felt the country was not
yet ready. They always kept a watch on what they said and did so as to see that they did not
embarrass their English friends.,

Further they made a distinction between the Government of India and the English public and took
meticulous care not to offend English people.

Moderation was, therefore, the watchward of the Liberal creed. An amusing illustration of this may
be given here. Hyndman, a socialist leader of England and a great friend of

I H. P. Mody: Pheroz Shah Mehta’, Vol. I, p. 225.

Dadabhai and the Indian national cause, sent Dadabhai a copy of his journal ‘Justice’ in August 1884
which contained an article entitled ‘Ruin of India’. Hyndman’s views did not commend themselves to
the Indian patriot who was wedded to constitutionalism. He wrote back: “In reading your ‘Ruin of
India’ in ‘Justice’, I thought it would be better if you avoided such positive statements as ‘an
insurrection is certain within the next few months or years’. The opponents take hold of such
assertions, and if the events predicted do not take place, discredit is thrown on the whole
movement. Especially, in the present circumstances of the fury and outrageous conduct of the
Anglo-Indian world, we arc obliged, in contrast with them, to adopt moderation in our language and

76
effort. Our hope now, however, is mostly in England.”‘ Getting impatient at the spineless agitation of
Indians and their faith in charity and not in demand for jus-tice, and disgusted with the passing of a
resolution of congratulation to the Queen by the Congress, Hyndman again wrote to Dadabhai in
1897, “Congratulation for what? For having ruined India for two or three generations to come? It is
pitiful. Men in high positions have said to me, ‘Where is the evidence of discontent, Mr. Hyndman?
What answer can I make to such a challenge? There is no answer. For outside of yourself what is any
native of India doing? Even the paper ‘India’ itself is a poor, clique-edited, badly written sheet which
does not interest even me.”‘ Dadabhai wrote to Hyndman, “I remain of the same view as I then
expressed to you after reading your article in ‘Justice’ My desire and aim has been not to
encourage rebel lion but to prevent it to make the British connection with India a benefit and
blessing to both countries.”3 In a letter to Motilal Ghose on July 23, 1897, Dadabhai wrote, “I, of

1 Masani: ‘Dadabhai Naoroji’, p. 294.

2 Masani: `Dadabhai Naoroji’, p. 399. 8 Ibid., p. 400.

course cannot join him (Hyndman) on the line that India may rebel. Our stand is confidence in the
British people, to persistently but constitutionally agitate For his socialistic alignments, Dadabhai
was criticised even by the ‘Hindu Patriot’, a Liberal organ of the day, which characterized it as a
dangerous policy. But it was a wrong calculation. Dadabhai was anxious to interest Englishmen in the
Indian cause and to get all help from whatever quarter it was possible. He deemed it a godsend
fortune that the Indian cause was taken up by such a powerful organisation which India had no
means to create.

The dependence of the Liberals on the good-will of the English nation was so great and their faith in
the latter’s sense of fairness and justice so deep that they never felt tired of giving expression to
their indebtedness and gratitude to British rule and the British people, despite trenchant remarks
from an advanced section of a few patriotic firebrands like Bal and Pal” even at this stage.
Presidental addresses and individual assertions are heavily punctuated with avowals of loyalty and
faith in the British nation and British Govern ment in India. In the first Presidential address W. C. Bon
nerjea said, “Much had been (lone by Great Britain for the benefit of India. She had given them
order, railways and above all inestimable blessings of western education.” Dadabhai Naoroji said
from the Congress platform in 1886, “It is our good fortune that we are under a rule which makes it
possible for us to meet in this manner. We are freely allowed to speak our minds without the least.
fear and with out the least hesitation; such a thing is possible under British rule and British rule
only.”3 Badaruddin Tyabji, in his third Congress Presidential Address in 1887, said, “We the educated
natives, by the mere force of our education, must

Masani: ‘Dadabhai Naoroji’, p. 400. Congress Presidential Address, 1886, p. 3. 3 Ibid., p. 6.

be the best appreciators of the blessings of a civilized and enlightened Government and, therefore,
in our own interests, the best and staunchest supporters of the British Government in India.”‘ Sir
Pheroz Shah Mehta declared in 1890, “I have unbounded faith in the living and fertilising principles
of English culture and English civilisation.”2 P. Anand Charlu said, “The leaders of the Congress, who
are the outcome of the British rule and whose very existence depends on the maintenance of the
British power in India, could (not) be so irrational as to adopt the suicidal policy of lopping off the
very branch on which they stand.”{ W. C. Bonnerjee explicitly acknowledged the debt in unequivocal

77
terms thus at. Allahabad in 1892, “It is the British professors who have discoursed eloquently to us
on the glorious constitution of their country; it is the British merchants who have shown to us how
well to deal with the commodities of our country; it is the British engineers who have annihilated
distance and enabled us to come together for our deliberations from all parts of the empire; it is the
British planters who have shown us how best to raise the products of our soil; it is all these, in other
words, it is all the influences which emanate from British rule in India that have made the Congress
the success it is.”‘

The reason behind this ‘moderation’ was of course the conviction that India was not fit yet for self-
government and lacked national unity and economic and military power. Any talk of an armed
rebellion was out of question after 1857. The demand for self-government was, therefore, rather an
extravagance. The need of the hour was to gather experience in the administration of the country by
running representative assemblies under parliamentary procedure and

‘ Congress Presidential Address, 1886, p. 25.

2 Ibid., p. 76. ‘Ibid., p. 90. 4 W. C. Bonnerjee; Presidential Address 1892, pp. 97-98.

through day-to-day increasing association and participation in the governance of the country.

Further, even the Liberal leaders also lacked political and organisational experience. The Congress
was a representative body of the middle class intelligentsia only. It had no help yet from either the
landed aristocracy or the masses. Hence, they could not but proceed cautiously—feeling, as they
went, the pulse of the people, educating them and strengthening the organisation in public
sympathy and support. National strength could only be built up gradually as public opinion became
more vocal and self-confident.

78
CHAPTER V: INDIAN LIBERALS IN THE CURZON ERA—THE
SURAT ‘SPLIT’
The Liberals in India were a homogeneous and united party until the early years of the 20th century
and the Indian National Congress continued to serve throughout this early period as their chief
forum and nerve-centre. It spoke in moderate and loyal tones for all the progressive political
interests in the country and its influence continued to increase steadily. It was gradually able to
attract over a thousand delegates to its annual sessions, and it began to offer more outspoken
criticism of Government’s policy as over the Indian Councils Act of 1892. The Government was.
however, now definitely hostile to it and “this meant that for next twenty years the Congress was
left isolated between the growing forces of extreme nationalism and a totally unsympathetic
government’’.’ For, indeed, the chief political development of this period is• the steady growth of an
“extremist” nationalism in India whose rise led to the first serious breach in the ranks of the Liberals,
known as the Surat ‘Split’. We must now turn to analyse the genesis of this new factor in Indian
politics and to assess the attitude and the reaction of the “moderate” liberals—the fathers of the
Congress—to., this new phenomenon.

Of course, the basic factors responsible for the intensi-fication of nationalism in India at this time
were the same that had been the cause of its genesis. Education had been expanding steadily among
the middle classes. The unifor-mity of the educational system, the administrative and legal

Thompson Sc Garratt: Rise & Fulfilment of British Rule in India, p. 544.

1 Moreland & Chatterji: ‘A Short History of India’, p. 393.

codes, the growing popularity of the English languages as the lingua franca of the country, and the
centralisation of the government machinery encouraged the sense of unity among the people and
made them conscious of their nationhood. The growing net of roads and railways was acting as a
further bulwark for this sentiment. Indeed, “it may be fairly said that the unity of India was pressed
on all sections of the literate classes from all sides,’” about this time.

Mounting Frustration: Along with this development, however, there was also growing up an
increasing sense of frustration among the middle class intelligentsia and many factors contributed to
its rise. Indians were still mostly debarred in practice from entry into the higher ranks of the public
service, such as, the army, the police, education, medical and forest services. Only a limited number
of them could enter the Indian Civil Service, to which also entry had been rendered more difficult
since 1878 by the reduction of the age of entry from 21 to N. For economic and patriotic reasons
alike, Indians demanded a larger share of offices arid emoluments in the public services, and the
slowness of the Government in honouring the Parliament’s pledges to admit Indians freely thereto
was naturally interpreted by them as a breach of good faith.

The Public Service Commission of 1886 recommended the creation of ‘Provincial’ cadres in the Civil
Services to satisfy this growing demand of the intelligentsia, but though a proportion of the higher
posts hitherto filled by Englishmen was now allocated to the new cadre, their number was too small
to satisfy the popular demand and the ‘Provincial’ cadre bore a suggestion of inferiority about it. The
Congress, therefore, continued to press for the holding of simultaneous examinations in India and
England for recruitment of the I.C.S., but even though the House of Commons passed

79
Loveday: ‘History of Indian Famines’, (London 1914), p. 66,

a resolution to that effect in 1893, even the Liberal Government then in office did not act upon it
and the change came about only after 1920. This increased the feeling of suspicion in the bonafides
of the Government still further.

While Indians were thus precluded from membership of the public services, they had also very
limited opportunities of doing public work for national uplift in unpaid capacities. The Municipal and
District Boards set up under Lord Ripon’s Resolution on Local Self-government did provide a slightly
larger scope for public life and activity in the towns, but they proved a very doubtful success in the
rural areas. Again the Indian Councils Act of 1892 provided at Lord Ditfferin’s suggestion for the
enlargement of the provincial legislative councils by nominations and indirect pseudo-Elections but
these new councils had official majorities, their scope of activity was very limited, and they gave
Indians no share in the formation of governmental policies which the latter were now eager to
acquire. It was, therefore, inevitable that a sense of political frustration should grow apace in the
country. The Indian languages press helped to spread this political discontent among the literate
classes more widely. and the growing sense of national unity among the people lent it both volume
and weight.

Further, other difficulties of the period added to its acuteness. The Chitral campaign of 1894 and the
wider frontier operations of 1897 against the Mohmands and the Afridis upset the Government’s
budget. The rains failed over the greater part of Northern India in 1896-97 causing a widespread
famine which affected nearly 70 million people and cost directly and indirectly over Rs. 12 crores on
relief.’ The bubonic plague first appeared in Bombay in August 1896 and spread rapidly to the
Deccan and then to the Punjab and the rest of the country, and as late as 1907, deaths due to plague
amounted to over 1 million for the year. It was a new and unknown disease and both the sickness
and some of the steps taken by the Government, such as the compulsory evacuation of affected
areas by the people, where necessary, as at Poona in I896—with the help of the police and the
army—caused widespread suffering and discontent. This famine was soon followed by the still
greater famine of 1899-1900 which affected even a wider area and obliged the Government to
provide relief for nearly 6 million people a week. The two famines caused between 11 and 2 million
deaths.

-These events naturally spread economic discontent in the country and some of the measures
adopted by the Government to combat the situation added fuel to the fire. The restoration of the
general import duty of 5 p. c. in 1894. to increase revenue, and the imposition of the Countervailing
Cotton Excise duty of 31, p. c. in 1896 under pressure from Lancashire, the closing of the mints to
the free coinage of silver in 1893 and the later fixing of the exchange rate at d—were not steps
calculated to allay this discontent what-ever justification might have been advanced for them. The
increasing indebtedness of the peasants and the havoc caused in their ranks by plague and famines,
the discontent among the commercial classes caused by the cotton excise and the rising prices of
imports and lessening yield of exports and the dissatisfaction of the intelligentsia with the general
political and administrative set-up in the country--all combined to create a situation that was bound
to stir up a spirit of more violent nationalism in the country.

80
Beginning of ‘Extremism’: The contemporary revival of Hinduism’ in a vigorous and reformed shape
gave to this surging nationalism at first a Hindu tinge and its chief ex-ponent was ‘Lokmanya’ B. G.
Tilak, a learned and scholarly

1 See Chapter III, pp. 59-91.

Maharashtrian’ who first came into prominence at Poona in connection with the agitation over the
Age of Consent Bill of 1891. He next plunged vigorously into condemnation of the Government for
the misbehaviour of the police and the military during the anti-plague operations at Poona in 1895,1
and castigated even G. K. Gokhale for first protesting against these activities and then apologising to
the Government for having been previously misinformed. The assassination of IWO European
officers at Poona on June 22, 1897 led the Government to prosecute Tilak for inciting sedition and he
%vas sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The press was also muzzled. Tilak’s incarceration on
the pretended ground that the word ‘disaffection’ in Sec. 124-A of the Penal Code means ‘absence of
affection’ sent a thrill of anger and sullen discontent all over the country. Surendra Nath wrote that
“a nation is in tears”.” Prof. Max Muller, the world famous Indologist, and an admirer of Tilak for his
researches in Indology,4 wrote that he (lid not believe “that there is any sedition lurking in India at
present, not even in the hearts of men like Tilak”‘ Tilak’s conviction thus .ittiicted attention at home
and abroad and the suspicion that it was due to political animosity naturally weakened the faith of
the frustrated younger patriots in British justice and good faith which was an article of faith with the
older Indian Liberals. It also transformed the movement of Hindu re-vival associated with B. G. Tilak8
into a political movement

‘ Lokmanya Tilak (1856 to 1920), Editor of the Kesari a Marathi newspaper. He initiated the
celebration of Shivaji and Gantsh Cita- turthi festivals in Maharashtra which were looked upon as
anti-Muslim activities.

2 The Kesari—May 14, 1897 and June 15, 1897.

3 Athalye: Life of Lokmanya Tilak’ (Poona, 1921), p. 100.

4 Tilak wrote “Orion” and the Arctic Home in the Vedas to suggest an original Arctic home for the
Indo-Aryans.

5 Life and letters edited by his wife—London, 1902, p. 370.

6 Tilak revived the Ganesh festival in Maharashtra as a national festival,

more strongly opposed to British Rule than the Liberal Congress.

Bengal was the other main centre of political ‘extremism’ in India at the time. Here also, the
contemporary religious and literary revival supplied the starting urge for such a movement. The
vernacular press became its chief propagandist. instrument. and the ‘Yugantar’, edited by
Bhupendra Nath I)utt, brother of the more famous Swami Vivekananda, played the same part in the
propagation of political extremism and the call for ‘direct action’ as against the `moderatism’ of the.
I.iberals in Bengal, as Tilak and the ‘Kesari’ did in Maharashtra. Bepin Chandra Pal and Aurovindo
Ghosh were other leaders of the Bengali movement. Tilak’s remarkable methods of organising the
extremist agitation more or less on the Irish model, his appeal to religion. his use of the vernacular

81
press to carry on his propaganda and his approach to the younger generation and chiefly students
were copied in Bengal also, and although Tilak had nothing to do with the cult of political
assassination, the more emotional Bengali patriots later took avidly to it as the only means available
to them to assert national self-respect and to work for national freedom.

Foreig,n Influences.: Foreign events about this time also encouraged these new political tendencies
in India. The European Powers seemed to be losing their dominant position in the world. The
Abyssinians defeated the Italians at Massawa in 1896. The S. African Boers gave a long and tough
battle to the mighty British Empire in the Boer War. The Macedonian massacres and the defeat of
the Greeks by the Turks in Crete provided a further lurid commentary on this text. Above all, the
triumph of Japan over Russia in 1904-05—which the Anglo-Indian rulers had been fearing for a
quarter of century—sent a thrill of pride in Asia’s resurgence all over India and the East. All these
factors explain the stiffening of the nationalist movement in India, and only against this background
can we rightly understand and interpret the Indian reaction to Lord Curzon’s regime and the Surat
‘Split° in the Congress.

Curzon’s Reforms: Lord Curzon arrived in India on Dec. 30, 1898 determined ‘to hold the scales
even’i and pro-mising “to devote the best years of (my) life to that which had for long been its
favourite occupation”.2 Sir Chimanlal Setalwad has, however, stated that “it was said by the people
that. Lord Curzon loved India as one loves his dog—as a useful and obedient slave.”3 The sequel
showed that this popular judgment was not far wrong. Curzon did not take long to snub Indians for
their presumption to speak on behalf of their people. To the Madras Mahajan Sabha, who claimed to
represent the Indian public before him, he said that he was “a little sceptical as to this huge
constituency being.... represented by this association whose membership did not ....extend beyond
two hundred.”‘

Reform of the Calcutta Corporation: The first out of the 12 major and urgent reforms that he now
set out to carry through in his time, was the reform of the Calcutta Corporation. A new Act drafted
by Curzon himself, was passed in 1899. It reduced the elected members on the Corporation by half,
gave it a nominated chairman, reduced its powers to fixing the rate of municipal taxes and laying
down the general policy only, and gave the British members upon it a decisive voice in its working..
These restrictions upon the self-governing powers of the Corporation plunged Calcutta into a vortex
of agitation—twenty-eight corporators, including Surendra Nath Banerjea, resigned immediately;
and the Lucknow session of the Congress in 1899 declared

Ronaldshay:—Life of Lord Curzon, Vol. II (1928), p. 22.

2 Reply to the address of the Calcutta Corporation, Jan. 11, 1899, lbid, p, 22.

3 Setalvad: Recollections and Reflections. Bombay (1946), p.

443.

4 Reply: Autumn of 1900.

in a formal resolution “its disapproval of the reactionary policy subversive of local self-government
as evidenced by the passing of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act in the face of the unanimous
opposition of the people: and by the introduction into the Legislative Council of Bombay of similar

82
measure.” Dr. Rash Bihary Ghosh described the Act as “reducing (local Self-Government) to the
shadow of a shade.”‘

Lund Revenue Policy: the Viceroy next concerned himself with land revenue policy. Eleven retired
civilians, 10 British and 1 Indian (namely, Mr. R. C. Dutt), had recently sent a memorial to the
Secretary of State for India attributing the late frequency of widespread fatuities to the over
assessment of the land revenue and demanding certain moderate reforms.’ The memorial was
passed on to the Viceroy who instituted country-wide enquiries, and on their basis drafted a
resolution’ controverting all the arguments of the memorialists categorically, and only promising
graduated enhancement of the revenue and adjustment of the government demand to the seasons
in future. A recent writer has observed that “from that time revenue disappeared from the arena of
controversy.” The controversy ceased with the blunt non-possumus of the Viceroy certainly but at
the cost of public confidence in the amenability of the British Go-vernment of India to the counsels
of even its own erstwhile trusted servants!

Speech of Calcutta—March 10, 1905:—Speeches By Dr. Rash Bihary Ghost’ (Calcutta, 1915), p. 155.

Viz., reduction of the revenue assessment to 50% of the gross yield, and of rent to 50% of the
revenue, 30-Year settlements and reduction of land cesses to 5% of the revenue demand—Sir R. C.
Dutt, Economic History of India in the Victorian Age (5th ed., London, 190(1), Vol. 11, pp. 506-07.

3 Resolution on Land Revenue Policy. Jan. 1902; Ronaldshay: “Life of Lord Curzon” Vol. II. p. 181.

Stanley Reed: The India I Knew 18974947 (London 1952),

p. 46.

University Reform: Lord Curzon’s educational re-forms excited even more furious controversy and
distrust. Nobody denied that Indian Universities needed reforms and reorganisation. But the
conference that Curzon called at Simla in Sept. 1901 contained no Indian, and this despite the fact
that Gokhale had long since been waging a crusade for the extension of primary education and the
Liberals had been demanding a programme of technical education and other reforms! The
Commission appointed in January 1902 to consider the problem had at first no Hindu member and
only repeated protests and intensive agitation led to the addition of Justice Guru Dass Banerjee as a
Member.

Pheroze Shah Mehta and Setalvad submitted a memorial to the Commission and also appeared
before it, and pleaded for freedom of recognition and affiliation for the I.Jniversities.1

The majority report of the Commission, however, vio-lently shook public opinion in India, though the
note of dissent of Justice Banerjee embodied the views of the Indian community and has been
commended by C. Y. Chintainaiti, as un-excelled by anything since written’’.’

Liberal Reaction: A mammoth meeting was held at the Calcutta Town Hall to register public protest
against the majority report and resolved “that this meeting desires to accord it emphatic support to
the dissent of the 1-lon’hle Justice Goordas Bannerjce so far as it goes as embodying the views of the
Indian community and the meeting would call special attention to the following recommendations of
the Commission as being open to the greatest objections: (1) the fixing of the minimum rate of

83
college fees by the syndicate, (2) the abolition of the, second ‘grade colleges, (3) the estab-lishment
of a Central Law College and the disaffiliation of

1937), p. 32.

H. P. Mody: Pheroze Shah Mehta, Vol. II, pp. 457-58.

2 C. Y. Chintamani: ‘Indian Politics Since Mutiny’ (Allahabad,

F. 18

the present Law classes attached to the colleges, (4) the recommendation that a candidate for
matriculation should pass in certain subjects at the School Final Examination before he is permitted
to pass the Matriculation Examination,

(5) the curtailment of the authority of the Senate in the matter of disaffiliation of colleges and the
recognition of

schools”.1

Despite the scathing public criticism of the Report of the Commission, the Universities Bill based on
its recommendations, was introduced in the Legislative Council on the 2nd Nov., 1903 and duly
passed in 1904.

Liberal Criticism of the Universities Act (1904): The Liberal leaders opposed the University Bill on the
following grounds2:—

(a) Deliberations of the Simla Conference were con-fined only to European educationists in
India and its proceedings were kept confidential.

(b) Evidence was held back from publication on the ground that it would involve useless
expense.

(c) It was apprehended that the Government wanted to reduce the number of the discontented
B.A.’s and the great army of the rejected candidates.

(d) (i) The Bill inflicted an unmerited indignity on men who had, on the whole, done good work
in the past.

(ii) The Bill failed to provide for election by professors who had immediate interest in the
deliberations of the university.

(iii) The number of the new senates was fixed at too low a figure.

(iv) The proportion of seats thrown open to election was too small, while those reserved for
government nominations was too large.

--------

1 Reminiscences, speeches and writings of Sir Gurdas Bannerjee

(Calcutta 1927), pp. 166-168.

84
2 Gokhale’s speech on the University Bill on Dec. 18, 1903, pp. 225-27.

(v) The five years’ limit to the duration of a fellowship would aggravate the evil of a large number of
seats being in the gift of Government.’

(e) The Bill aimed at oflicialization of the Universities by dissociating the Indian element from
the administration of the university.2

(f) It was unjust to deal in one Bill with five dif-ferent Universities having different histories and
growth’

(g) Even if there were some defects in the Calcutta University, there was no justification for
tarring all the universities with the same brush.’

(h) The Government of U. P. having expressed its disapproval of the Bill, the supreme
Government was not morally justified to override the wishes of the local Government’s

The Bill became an Act. It did have some good points. Senates of the Universities had been
constituted by unqualified men and fellowships were really very cheap. Secondly, in our universities
teaching had been made subservient to examination. As a result of the principles laid down in the
Act of i904 there was remarkable expansion of post-graduate teaching under the direct auspices of
the universities.” But, as Sir Pheroze Shah pointed out, Government institutions were equally bad. “I
appreciate as well as any other person the importance of elevating educational ideals, but this
object can be secured without impairing the popular basis, by

I Gokhale’s minute of dissent appended to the Select Committee Report—discussing the

constitutional portion of the Bill, March 18, 1904, pp. 238-239.

2 Ibid., p. 244.

3 Ibid., p. 245.

4 Ibid., p. 247.

5 Ibid., p. 252.

6 Calcutta University Commission, 1917-19 Report, Vol. I, para. 92, p. 76.

providing well-equipped and well-supplied models.”‘ Curzon failed to appreciate the justice of the
popular criticism of the Act and the remarks of the Sadler Commission that “an effective synthesis
between College and University was still undiscovered when the reforms of 1904 had been worked
out to their conclusion’’ and that in truth the foundations of a sound university 01 ganisation had
not yet been laid= formed a suitable epitaph of Curzon’s educational policy. In the Opinion of II. V.
Lovett the educational reforms of Curzon might have proved more fruitful in the eighties, but as
things were, “his very zeal inspired a belief that his real purpose was to curb the increase of the
restless English-educated.’

Restrictions on the Press: Curzon muzzled the Press also by the Official Secrets Act of 1904 by placing
civil matters on a level with naval and military matters so as to punish anyone who went to a
Government office without lawful authority or permission and to make all offences under the Act

85
cognisable and non-bailable. The publication of even the most trivial news in connection with the
vast civil administration of the country could be made penal. In the words of Gokhale, “It is dreadful
to think of the abuse of authority which is almost certain to result from this placing of Indian editors,
especially the smaller ones among them, so completely at the mercy of those whom they constantly
irritate or displease by their criticism”.4

Review: Lord Curzon.... had shown himself intole-rant of the claims of the educated Indian public
which Britain had created.5 On the ground of efficiency or pre

Mody: Pheroz Shah, p. 473.

Report of the Calcutta University Commision, 1917-19, Vol. I., Ch. III (paragraphs 93 ;L: 94) , p. 77.

8 Sir H. V. Lovett: The Growth of Education Policy (1858-1018): The Cambridge History of India, Vol.
VI (1932). p. 352.

4 Speech of Gokhale on 4th Dec. 1903 in the Imperial Council: Gokhale’s Speeches, pp. 214-215.

3 John Buchan: Lord Minto, a Memoir (Nelson—London III Impression, 1924), p. 229.

judice against Indians, he wanted to reserve the higher offices for Englishmen, “for the reason that
they possess, partly by heredity. partly by up-bringing and partly by education, the knowledge of the
principles of government and the habits of mind, the vigour of character which are essential for the
task’? Even this might have been tolerated. At Calcutta he went to the extent of saying that the West
had a higher standard of truthfulness than the East, “where craftiness and diplomatic wile have
always been held in much repute”.2 These ()biter dicta wounded the self-esteem of the educated
classes of India.

The Partition of Bengal: On the top of al! This public dissatisfaction came the Partition of Bengal in
1905 made secretly and allegedly for the sake of administrative COIDT• DicIICC and efficiency. When
the proposal for the Partition came to be known, violent public agitation arose against it in Bengal
and even Dadabhai Naoroji wrote that “it will be productive of mischief to the British rule”.2 It soon
spread to other parts of the country and opened a new chapter in the history of Indian Liberalism. As
an English civilian wrote in 1911, it. became a landmark of social order and harbinger of an unhappy
era of criminal acts and conspiracies against British Rule.’

The Partition was a bitter disappointment to the Indian Liberals like Surrendra Nath Banerjea,
Dadabhai and (k)khale:—

Surrencira Nath has stated that We felt that we had been insulted, humiliated and tricked”.5

1 Fourth Budget Speech of Curzon (March, 1904). T. Raleigh: “Lord Curzon in India” (London, 1906),
Vol. 1. pp. 103-120.

2 Calcutta Convocation Speech (1905) 11)41, Vol. 11, pp. 57-64.

3 Dadabhai’s letter to Press dated Aug. 21, 1905: Masani p. 457.

4 Sir Thorns liolderness in revised edition of Stratchey’s

86
it, Administration and Progress—quoted by Stanley Reed in “The India I Knew”, p. 169.

6 S. N. Banerjea: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 187.

Gokhale said that “The scheme of Partition will always stand as a complete illustration of the worst
fea-tures of the present system of bureaucratic rule; its utter contempt of public opinion, its
arrogant preten-tions to superior wisdom, its reckless disregard of the most cherished feelings of the
people, the mockery of an appeal to its sense of justice, its cool preference of service interests to
those of the governed”)

Dadabhai Naoroji, presiding at a protest meeting of Indians resident in the U.K., said that “here is a
clear issue between the rulers and the ruled.... the rulers say: ‘We shall rule’, while the ruled arc
saying ‘That shall not be’ “.2

A mighty wave of protest and opposition submerged the whole of Bengal and its echoes reached far
beyond the pro vince. The more militant sections of the nationalists, specially in Bombay—were
stung into fury. In Bengal itself a terrorist movement came into existence to free the country of its
foreign rulers by revolutionary methods like those of the contemporary Russian revolutionaries. The
day that the Partition was put into operation (Oct. 16, 1905) was declared as a day of national
mourning to be observed all over the country by keeping a fast and hartal. Bengali ladies bound a
Rakhi on the hands of Bengali men as a pledge that they would undo the Partition, and the
foundation stone of a Federation Hall was to be laid down—which, at Surendra Nath Banerjea’s
suggestion was to be kept shrouded like the Strassbourg statue in Paris till the Partition was undone.
A national fund was to be raised to help the weaving industry. Surendra Nath Banerjea has
graphically described the scenes of universal popular enthusiasm in the ensuing demonstrations
which concluded with A. M. Bose’s declaration

I Gokhale’s Presidential Address at Banaras Congress 1905—Gokhale’s Speeches, pp. 691-92.

2 Masan!: Dadabhai Naoroji, pp. 434-35.

at the public meeting of protest, to which he had been brought in an invalid chair, that since the
Government had made the Partition “in spite of the universal protest of the Bengalee nation, we
hereby pledge and proclaim that we as a people shall do everything in our power to counteract the
dismemberment of our province to maintain the integrity of our race. So God help us”.1 Incidentally
the peculiar use of the word `nation’ and ‘race’ in these remarks by a veteran Liberal like Anand
Mohan Bose deserves attention as symptomatic of the underlying limitations of the nationalist
sentiment in India at the time. However, we must now turn to see how the general body of Indian
Liberals and other Indian political groups reacted to Curzon’s high-handed Partition of Bengal.

The Swadeshi Movement: Several proposals now came up before the leaders for a concrete protest
against the Partition. One of these was that Indians should resign from all honorary appointments
and the membership of all local self-government bodies. But this proposal did not find much favour
because it was felt that, firstly, these offices served as a means of service to the people and,
secondly, because there was no likelihood that it would be adopted by all such officeholders, and its
partial success would only compromise the movement.

87
The other proposal was to ‘boycott’ British goods and encourage the use of ‘Swadeshi’ (home-made)
product’s. Surendra Nath Banerjea has described it as an intuitive response of the people in a critical
predicament.) According to Nevinson, “It was first suggested by Krishna Kumar Mitra in his paper
“Sanjibani” when he declared that India’s one sure means of drawing England’s attention to the
Partition and other wrongs was the boycott of British goods”.8 But

1 See Banerjea’s ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 216.

2 Ibid., p. 190.

3 Nevinson: ‘The New Spirit in India’, p. 327.

the demand for encouraging industrial development in India was as old as the Congress, and the
example of China, which had successfully ‘boycotted’ American goods. and that of the Irish ‘boycott’
movement served as contemporary pointers to the possibilities of such a movement in India.

The Liberal Leaders wider whose auspices this move-ment was launched. however. did not want at
the same time to wound the susceptibilities of their British friends 4nd sympathisers. I WAI’ i wrote
to Wacha: “I wonder whether Lancashit e being; boycotted will retaliate by not providing India with
machinery lor new mills that would be needed if the boycott \’\ as successful.’ In his presidential
address at Calcutta. he declared that he was a free trader, but that “Swadeshi is a forced necessity
for India in its un-natural economic muddle. As long as the economic conditio remains unnatural
and impoverishing.... to talk of applying (ordi ary) economic laws to the condition of India is adding
insult to injury”The popular enthusiasm behind the movement was universal and undoubted.
Surendra Natli Bancrjea has described graphically how no student dared appear in his school or
college class-room in foreign clothes, and no foreign goods could be offered or used in inatriages or
at puja.” Even the public women of Dacca took the vow of Swadeshi, and drink addicts began to use
country spirits instead of imported liquors.’ Nevinson found ‘Swadeshi’ shops for sale of biscuits,
cigi cttes, scents, toys and all manner of things in all Indian towns and describes how ht was
requested by a batch of Hindu merchants dealing in Manchester goods, and who were in
consequence ‘boycotted’ by their milkmen,

Letter: Oct. 19. 1905; Masani, n. 450.

2 Dadabhai’s ‘Congress Presidential Address’ Calcutta, 1906, p.

710.

3’A Nation in Making’,—pp. 196-199.

4 “Swadeshi-cum-lloycott”—an article by Hemendra Prasad Ghosh in the Indian Review, April 1908.

barbers and friends, to use his influence with the Home Government to set everything right.’

The ‘Swadeshi’ spirit overflowed into all spheres of life. New mills and banks were started, such as
the Banga Laxmi Mills and the Bengal National Bank. Indian journalism received a powerful stimulus
and ‘Swadeshism’ gradually widened out into a new philosophy of life. Obviously, the movement
was outstepping the limits of a constitutional and political expedient as the Liberal leadership had
adopted it and was tnobilising the moral energies of a whole people so long pent-up within

88
constitutional bounds. All might still have been well but for the short-sighted follies of the
bureaucracy which looked upon the movement as mere froth and fury to be curbed severely in the
interests of law and order. Students were forbidden to take part in boycott and picketing and their
schools and colleges were threatened with stoppage of grants-in-aid and disaffiliation if they did so.
The infamous `Bandematram Circular’ banned the singing of the song and under the orders of Sir
Bampfylde Fuller, the Barisal Conference (1906) was forcibly dispersed—Muslim leaders were
•purchased’2—Hindu-Muslim riots, engineered by the Police, broke out at Dacca, Comilla and
Jamalpur. Fuller openly declared that of his two wives, the Mohammadan was his favourite, but his
forced resignation later from the Lieut. Governorship of East Bengal did not undo the mischief he
had done by exposing the Government’s policy of dividing the Muslims from the Hindus in order to
crush the popular movement.

The Growth of ‘Extremism’: These facts provide the background for the contemporary growth and
development of extremism in the country. Liberal leadership, so far confined to -a handful of the
English-educated upper class

1 Nevinson: The New Spirit in India (1908), pp. 187-188.

2 Ibid., p. 191—quotes the case of Nawab Salimullah who first declared the Partition as ‘beastly’ and
then, after receiving a Government loan of £100,000, praised it.

Feroz Cliand: ‘Lida Lajpat Rai’, Article V111 in the Hindustan Tittles, Jan. 3, 1954.

and wedded to constitutionalism, was now confronted with a ‘mass’ movement that owed its origin,
of course, to their own initiative, but whose leaping flame of patriotism had quickened the youth of
the country into new energy and created a demand for new methods of work and new objectives,
and brought newer men to the front of the nationalist movement to achieve them.

At the Bombay Congress in 1904, Lajpat Rai and Dwarkadas urged the need for a constitution for the
Congress that would provide a machinery for sustained work throughout the year.’ But Pheroze Shah
Mehta snubbed them. At the Banaras Congress in 1905, the clash of ideology between the old
Liberal leadership and the left-wingers was even more pronounced. On the question of according a
welcome to the Prince of Wales (Later King George V), the ‘extremists’, under the leadership of Tilak,
declared that they would oppose the Subject Committee’s welcome resolution in the open Congress,
and the situation was only averted by Gokhale’s personal appeal to L. Lajpat Rai who prevailed upon
Tilak to desist from such open defiance of the ‘Old Guard’. The views of the extremists were being
now widely publicised by Tilak’s ‘Kesari’ in Maharashtra, Lajpat Rai’s ‘Punjabec’ in the Punjab and
Aurobindo’s ‘Bandematram’ in Bengal.

‘Lokmanya’ B. G. Tilak of Poona was undoubtedly the ‘father’ of this ‘extremist’ party. Some of his
early activities have been already referred to earlier in this Chapter. As early as 1899, he proposed to
condemn the regime of Lord Sandhurst in Bombay and could only be silenced by the then Congress
President R. C. Dutt’s threat to resign. He felt from the beginning that the Congress drew its political
sustenance from English history and Western ideals and had no roots either in the past of the
country or in the inner spirit of the nation.* Swadeshism and its corollary of boycott of all things
foreign naturally found a stalwart supporter in him. He habitually wrote and spoke in his native
tongueMarathi; later, he translated the Gita in his celebrated commentary—the Gitarahasya—in

89
which he elaborated the thesis that philosophy of activism was the central teaching of the Gita. He
inaugurated the Shivaji and Ganpati festivals as instruments to rejuvenate the people’s pride in their
past heroes. He was charged with anti-Muslim bias but he declared that “It is a sheer
misrepresentation to suppose that the worship of Shivaji.... (is)... . an invocation to fight either with
the Mohammedans or with the Government a future leader may be born anywhere in India and who
knows, may even be a Mohammedan”.’ At a public meeting in Calcutta, he declared that the people
should learn to be self-reliant. “It is impossible to expect that our petitions will be heard unless
backed by firm resolution (The) three P’s—Pray, Please and Protest—will not do unless hacked by
solid force. Look to the examples of Ireland, Japan and Russia. and follow their methods.”2 These
few quotations refute the charges of ‘primitive communal fanaticism’ and parochial obscurantism
against this great tribune of the people.’ Tilak certainly opposed dissipation of national energies on
questions of social reforms, until independence was won, like those preached by Ranade and
Agarkar, to be carried out with the help of a foreign and unsympathetic government ignorant of the
hoary traditions and inner needs and urges of the Hindu community, but this amounts only to saying
that social reconstruction could be achieved better

* Aurobindo Ghosh: ‘B. G. Tilak’ p. 21.

1 The Maratha—article dated June, 24, 1906.

2 Speech at Calcutta, June 7, 1906—Tilak’s Speeches 8c Writings (III ed., Ganesh, Madras,• 1922, p.
45).

8 See for a recent criticism of Tilak in Percival Griffith’s ‘The British Impact of India’, pp. 284-287.

I For Gandhiji’s views on Tilak, see ‘The History of the Congress„ by Pattabhi, p. 99.

in a free India and perhaps the view will be recognised as unexceptionable now.’

The above brief account of Tilak’s views would perhaps suffice to indicate the growing difference of
views between the Liberals and the left-wingers in the Congress. The left-wingers wanted to achieve
independence through boycott of British goods and fititish institutions and the establishment of
indigenous institutions in Government and society. The more extremist among them wanted to use
revolutionary methods on the Russian model to achieve their objectives. Between 1905 and 1907,
the gulf widened still further due to the repressive actions of the Government and the seeming
helplessness of the Liberals either to prevent Partition or to check bureaucratic high-handedness. It
was clear to the patriots that a stronger sanction behind the nationalist movement was necessary to
force the Government to listen to its voice. Yet it would he incorrect to deny that the Liberals had no
part or lot in this development. It was certainly with their approval and at their initiative that the
Swadeshi Movement had been started and it was their devoted labours for the past two generations
that had paved the way for the emergence of a stronger and more self-conscious nationalist
ideology under the provocation of the Partition of Bengal. Liberal methods of political work now
scented to the younger generation of patriots as too slow and ineffective.

Tilak’s advent on the political scene emphasized this cleavage. The fixing of a new aim for the
political struggle, the necessity of exhibition as well as the inculcation of national vitality and self-
help, appeared to be rather overdue. It was necessary to mobilize the masses. It was important to
visualize the future of the country. It was essential to let the people at large know what was the

90
import of Swaraj, how it was to be achieved, what it would be like and what services, sacrifices and
sufferings it would entail. It was meet and proper to show both to the adversary and to the people
of the land that free India would not be a replica or a cheap edition of the British system of
government. Moreover, the greatest necessity of the times was the emergence of a party that might
remain at the spearhead of the struggle, keep the nation in readiness ideologically, impart practical
lessons in political organisation and strategy, consolidate the scattered nationalist forces with the
bonds of sentiments and emotions and thus give the Liberals a respite and an opportunity to bring
into play their statesmanship in negotiating with the British and wringing from them the bits of
power and utilizing them to the best advantage to prepare the nation in the art of administration
and governance on modern lines and, at the same time, get the struggle for freedom more
effectively on the move. Without the extremist sword hanging on their heads, the diehard
imperialists could not be persuaded to concede the demands of the Liberals.

Side by side with the new nationalist party there sprang up a revolutionary party under the
leadership of Bii-endra Kumar Ghosh, younger brother of Aurobindo Ghosh and

Bhupendra Nath 1)utta, the tiilly....1)4Otfter of/Svmi Vivekanand. They founded twos
genuinelyrievolutionary papers, the ‘Yugantar’ and the ‘Sarkihya’, to which a reference has already
been made. ‘Yugantar’ began “to pour social hatred”. It became very popular. In regard to its
character and teaching the Chief Justice said, “‘They exhibit a burning hatred of the British race, they
breathe revolution in every line, they point out how revolution is to be effected. No calumny and no
artifice is left out which is likely to instil the people of the country with the same idea or to catch the
impressionable mind of youth.’”1 In the same way `Sandhya’ proclaimed abroad: “We want
complete indepen

Sedition Committee Report, 1918, p. 22.

Bence. The country cannot prosper so long as the veriest shred of the Feringhi’s supremacy over it is
left.”‘

The activities of these left-wingers were supplemented by Shyarnji Krishna Verma who had set up a
counter move-ment against the Indian National Congress in England. ‘Through his “Indian
Sociologist”, he made vigorous attacks on the Liberal leaders, Naoroji, Gokhale, Wedderburn, etc.
“He acted as a very potent influence in creating discontent against the sober and staid politics of the
Congress leaders”2 and his ideas did influence Hardayal and Savarkar,3 later on. Lala Lajpat Rai net
him during his visit to England between June 10, 1905 and Nov. 30, 1905, and though his ideas were
much like his own, Lalaji did not share his acerbity towards the Congress and did not approve of his
attitude towards its leaders.’

They had a six item programme— (1) hatred of servitude, (2) removal of fear of unemployment and
starvation, (3) Bandemataram procession, Swadeshi Conferences, Boycott meetings, etc.. (4)
recruitment and training of young men in revolutionary tactics, (5) collection of weapons and (6)
raising of funds. Revolutionary societies multiplied with two centres at Calcutta and Dacca, and ‘the
Dacca Society’ had 500 branches.3

91
The history of the terrorists movement is replete with murders, both intentional and innocent, of
English officials and Indians who tried to put a spoke in their wheel, dacoities and acts of terrorising
officers and witnesses dealing with their cases.

The Widening Rift: To forestall the situation the Liberals invited the Grand Old Man of India,
Dadabhai

Sedition Committee Report, 1918, p. 23.

Feroze Chand: Lala Lajpat Rai: ‘The Hindustan Times’, June 3, 195•1.

310 Lajpat’s letter quoted in Lajpat’s life by Feroze Chand,

Sedition Committee Report, 1918, p. 21.

Naoroji by cable to preside over the coming session in the hope that even the most rabid extremist
would not oppose the candidature of such an apostle of Indian Nationalism as filled his countrymen
with “admiration, envy and despair” and who had dedicated his life to their good. After Partition his
utterances breathed fire and he felt that ‘self-government’ was the only remedy for India’s woes and
wrongs. Being outwitted, Moti Lal Chose, the ‘bitter—sweet’ editor of the Anirita Bazar Patrika’,
wrote to him, “You are welcome—thrice welcome. You are aware that a change has come over the
people. The Congress, as it is, cannot satisfy them .

Some such direction should, therefore, be given to it as to make it really a national thing and an
object of attraction to the highest and the lowest.”‘

The Calcutta Congress of 1906 is a landmark in the history of the national movement as Dadabhai
Naoroji, the President-elect, delivered an/ address very different from the conventional Congress
presidential addresses,2 and for the first time employed the word “Swaraj” to express the political
objective of India. “We do not ask for any favours”, he said, “we want justice. Instead of going into
any further divisions of our rights as British citizens, the whole matter can be compromised in el tie
word—’Self-government’ or ‘Swaraj’ like that of the United Kingdom or the Colonies.”‘ The use of
the word `Swaraj’ was an obvious gesture of response to the rising tide of nationalism, and indicative
both of Liberal statesmanship and of their claim to have first enunciated clearly swaraj as the goal of
the Congress, officially through the mouth of the ‘Grand Old Man’ of Indian Liberalism.

1 Masani: “Dadabhai ‘Naoroji”, p. 497.

2 Andrews & G. Girja: The Rise & the Growth of Congress, p.

211.

3 Presidental Address, Calcutta, 1906—Congress Presidential Ad-dresses, p. 724.

But the Calcutta session of the Congress was nevertheless a stormy one, and the main conflict
surged round the ‘boycott’ resolution. The ‘moderates’ disfavoured -boycott except in Bengal.
Gokhale stated the Liberal view in his speech on Swadeshi.’

He said that while there was some scope for the de-velopment of small village industries, “India will
have to take to large scale industries to meet her needs and will need imports. The cause of

92
Swadeshi can be served by making India acquainted with industrial conditions abroad, by providing
capital or sending Indian students to foreign countries to acquire industrial and scientific education,
or use, as far as possible, Swadeshi articles, were the promoters of the Swadeshi cause. So it was
wrong to feel “whoever is not with us is against us.” The right course to adopt was “Whoever is not
against us is with us’’. He exhorted the people not to emphasize the boycott of foreign goods but to
emphasize the use of Swadeshi articles, because the word boycott had a sinister meaning—it
implied a vindictive desire to injure another; it created unnecessary against ourselves. Moreover, a
strict boycott of foreign goods was not at all practicable in the then Indian conditions. “For when you
boycott foreign goods you must not touch even a particle of imported article: and we only make
ourselves ridiculous by talking of a resolution which we cannot enforce.-

So it was not timidity or vulgar flattery that prevented the Moderates from adopting the boycott
resolution, but dictates of statesmanship required that the infinite prolongation and extra-provincial
extension of the measure was fraught with genuine difficulties. But to avoid an open rupture the
resolution moved by A. C. Mazumdar and seconded by Bepin Chandra Pal that ‘the boycott
movement inaugurated in

Gokbale’s Speeches, pp. 958-74.

Bengal by way of protest against the Partition of that province was and is legitimate’ was passed.
The resolution was interpreted both by the Extremists and the Moderates in their own way; the
former thought it applied to all India while the latter confined its application to Bengal alone. So it
was a mere compromise to keep up the dignity of the chair. But the proceedings of the Subjects
Committee were disgraced by much commotion and disorder. Elders were insulted and subjected to
invectives. Liberalism was on its trial.

The Surat ‘Split’: The patched truce of Calcutta could not endure. The patches were torn off by the
vigorous propaganda of Tilak and his worthy lieutenant Khaparde. The Moderates were vilified and
painted as “The most debased of humankind”.1 The next session of the Congress was scheduled to
be held at Nagpur. The Extremists wanted Tilak to preside over the Nagpur session. But the
Reception Committee by a three-fourth majority elected Dr. Rash Behary Chose to the chair. Dr.
Chose “was not only a jurist but had rare command of English”.2 His knowledge of law had tended
him to moderation. This upset the Extremists. They now resolved to see the Nagpur session end in
fiasco. Their preparations filled the Reception Committee with serious apprehensions. The
Extremists gave an exhibition of their intention at a meeting of the Reception Committee held on the
22nd September, 1907. Pheroze Shah and his party tried to strike a compromise, but all in vain.

It was then decided to change the venue to Surat. Seeing the failure of’ their designs the Extremists
flew into wild passion. They thought that there was a design behind the choice of the ‘Sleepy hollow’
of Surat as the venue of the coming session. It was close to Bombay, the citadel of the Bombay
Moderates and a preserve of Pheroze Shah and

1 Mody: Pherozeshah, Vol. II, p. 257.

2 Nevinson: The New Spirit in India, p. 234. F. 20

93
Wacha. They recognised that Pheroze Shah’s services to the national cause had been certainly
laudable, but it was all past history. Now the suspicious mind of the Extremists read a sinister
meaning in the past innocent utterances of Pheroze Shah.

Tilak now put up Lala Lajpat Rai for the president-ship of the Congress in place of Dr. Ghosh who had
been duly elected to be the President of the Surat Congress. Lalaji was a Moderate among the
Extremists and an Extremist among the Moderates. So neither party could disown him. But the
seasoned patriot refused to play the game of any party. Tilak then tried to bring in the name of
Ashwani Kumar Dutta, the hero of the Barisal Affair, but this attempt also proved abortive.

The Extremists entrenched themselves in a separate camp, in a distant quarter of the town, a little
before the appointed date. On the testimony of R. N. Mudholkar and H. P. Mody, the biographer of
Sir Pheroze Shah, we learn that among the delegates and visitors in Tilak’s camp were gymnastics
instructors, proclaimed touts, workmen from factories, fitters, oilmen—et hoc genus otnne—people
who would not hesitate to employ stronger measures if everything else failed.’

The Liberal Contingent entered the pandal amidst the strains of the Bandemataram and exposed to
the thick showers of roses and drenched with ‘Swadeshi scents’. The tremendous ovation which the
president-designate and his companions received during their journey from Calcutta to Surat was
encouraging. But their hearts were heavy, as they had heard during the course of their journey that
Allen, the Collector of Dacca, had been shot at. A month before an attempt had been made to wreck
the train of Sir Andrew

1 R. N. Mudholkar’s Version of the Surat Incident, Amraoti, Jan., 1912, quoted by A. C. Mazumdar in
‘Indian National Evolution’, Ap-pendix B, pp. 11.12.

Fraser. When they arrived at Surat, they did not find a

peaceful atmosphere. The air at Surat was full of distrust and suspicion. It was thick with rumour,
passion and indignation.

It may be stated with a fair measure of probability that the leaders of both the groups were not
opposed to each other on grounds of personal aggrandisement. It was all a question of conflict of
convictions and ideologies—both parties being sincere and earnest in their view-points and sanguine
about their methods to achieve their objectives. This was why there was a genuine endeavour to
make a compromise—but a compromise that should not affect the ideals of either party materially.

The Main Issues: Lala Lajpat Rai tried to unite the two groups and proposed a convention of five
representatives of each side. But there was no time for the purpose. The points at issue were
these:—

(a) The Tilakites smarted under the autocratic rule’ ‘of some Liberal leaders’. They felt, and
probably rightly, that the Liberals did not want to allow the extremist element to come into the
Congress. So by tact and power they had always a president of their choice. This time the Extremists
were determined to have a president of their party—preferably Tilak.

(b) The Extremists were not prepared for any change in the four Calcutta resolutions. The
Boycott resolution was the bone of contention. In the Calcutta Resolution the wording: “The Boy-

94
cott movement inaugurated by Bengal” was changed by Gokhale by words, “Boycott of foreign
goods resorted to in Bengal”. In the former formula could be included not only the boycott of
foreign goods, but of everything foreign—appoint

1 Tilak’s speech—Dec. 23, 1907 at Surat, ‘Tilak’s Speeches, p. 376.

merits, education, authority, taxation and govern-ment itself Here was no half-way house, no
common ground for compromise.”‘

(c) The Liberals wanted to do a thing but thought it to be imprudent to make a fuss of it. Tilak
put it bluntly like this: “We do what is right,” whereas Liberals say, “Do, but don’t displease the
Govern men t”.2

(d) The advent of Morley to the India office and the latter’s policy of “rallying the Moderates”
stiffened the Liberal attitude.

But for the sake of a compromise the Extremist Party was agreeable to maintaining the status-quo if
the four Calcutta Resolutions were adopted intact and ‘a graceful reference’ was to be made to the
desire of the public to have Lala Lajpat Rai in the chair. Both were delicate questions.

The Opening Session at Surat: No compromise could be made. One by one the fateful hour came.
The day’s proceedings began. Dr. (Those was duly proposed to the chair. Banerjea, whose presence
on the rostrum was a signal for silence, rose to second the proposal. Hardly had he uttered ten
words, when there burst forth a tumult of protests, and the meeting ended in pandemonium.

Every body felt humiliated by the disgraceful turn of events. Tilak himself commented that the
outbreak was ‘accidental and unexpected’. Late in the evening an appeal in the name of about
twenty leading Congressmen was issued to the effect that it would be utterly humiliating if the
session of the- Congress had to be suspended.

The Second Session: On the next day, Dec. 27, at 1 p.m. the Congress met again. While the
Presidential procession was heading towards the dais, a small slip was handed

1 Nevinson: The New Spirit in India, p. 252; Tilak’s Speech at Calcutta, Tan. 2, 1907, Tilak’s Speeches
(Ganesh, III ed.), p. 65.

2 Tilak’s Speech at Surat, Dec. 28, 1907, Ibid., p. 376.

3 Morley’s Indian Speeches, p. 40.

to Tribhuvandas Malvi, the chairman of the Reception Com-mittee, on behalf of Tilak asking to be
allowed to speak, after the election of the president was sanctioned, on a motion of an
“adjournment with a constructive proposal.”

Surendra Nath Banerjea was permitted to finish his speech. Pt. Moti Lal Nehtu spoke a few words in
support of the proposal. Dr. Ghose took the chair and got up to deliver his address. Hardly had he
spoken the opening words of his address, when Tilak sprang up on the platform and said that he
would like to speak, as he had given notice of an amendment. Arguments began. He was ruled out of
order. But Tilak did not listen to the rulings of the chair and attempted to address the delegates. He

95
was not listened to. This delay exhausted the patience of the audience. Again, there was a stormy
outburst. Tilak stood firm determined not to move. Gokhale stood behind him waving his hands to
protect him against any attack. Amidst this commotion of the huge multitude:—

“Suddenly something flew through the air—a shoe! —a Maratha shoel—reddish leather pointed toe,
sole studded with lead. It struck Surendra Nath Banerjea on the check; it cannoned off upon Sir
Pheroze Shah Mehta”.1

It was followed by a free fight between the two par ties. Chairs, sticks, umbrellas, fists were freely
used. The arena of wordy warfare was changed into a battle field. The police restored the order.
Thus came to a close ‘the saddest episode in the story of the Congress’.2 On the evening of the 27th,
the leading delegates met together and discussed the situation. On the 28th about 900 Moderate
delegates held a convention under strict police guard and heavy precautions in the same Congress
pavilion and adopted a manifesto to reorganise the Congress. A com

Nevinson: ‘The New Spirit in India’, pp. 257-58.

2 Annie Besant; ‘How India Wrought for Freedom’, p. 465,

mittee was appointed to frame a new constitution for the Congress. The Extremists held a separate
convention.

Who was to Blame? It is difficult to answer this question categorically. R. N. Mudholkar says that but
for “One or two unitentional acts or omissions” of the Moderates “the whole rowdyism ....was due
t’l) the Extremists”.1 H. P. Mody, Pheroze Shah’s biographer holds that “it was a piece of organised
hooliganism”.2 The ‘Pioneer’ observed that.

“the disturbance was the result of a deliberately pre conceived plan of the Extremist leaders” who
finding themselves “in a hopeless minority were determined not to take defeat on the industrial
resolutions and so resolved to make the situation impossible ““ Nevinson, another eye-witness,
appears to be cautious not to apportion the blame to any party, though he points to the inevitability
of the situation.’ Mazuntdar thinks it hardly conceivable that a man of Tilak’s position and patriotism
could have associated himself with any plan to wreck the Con gress.5 Reviewing these observations
and the different versions of the opposite parties one thing can be asserted with a fair measure of
certainty that the rupture between the two parties was bound to come. It had been brewing up
since long. It was unfortunate that it took such an ugly turn for its emergence. For its steady coming
up was known even to Pherozeshah who “was inclined to regard it as a blessing in disguise”.e

But judged from the canons of democracy it was the Extremists who were to blame, because
according to the then Constitution of the Congress, Dr. Ghose was the President-elect and they had
no justification in staging the scene

Mudholkar’s version, op. cit., Mazumdar, pp. 9-14. 2 ‘Sir Pheroz Shah Mehta’, p. 545.

8 The Pioneer, Dec. 30, 1907.

*The New Spirit in India’, pp. 252-253.

8 ‘Indian National Evolution, p. 114.

96
Mody: ‘Sir Pheroze Shah Mehta’, vol. II. p. 540.

which Tilak did on the 27th December, when he had already expressed regret for the first day’s
occurrence. Although the action of the Moderates in having shifted the venue from Nagpur to Surat
had been sufficiently provocative, yet such tactics are not uncommon to the democratic code. Tilak
saw no future of the party by the democratic method, though he continued to profess it long after,
and took to that undemocratic procedure, driven as he was by the force of circumstances. The
sequel also proved that he had not been wise in having taken that step, because he had to go back
to Liberal methodology again.

The Surat ‘split’ and its Reactions: The Surat `Split’ marks a turning point both in the attitude of the
Government and in the history of the national movement. In Morley’s judgment, it meant “the
victory of Extremist over Moderates and pointed to a future stage in which the Congress will have
become an Extremist organisation”.1 It ushered an era of Reform and Repression. Reforms were
necessary “to rally the Moderates”2 and repression to crush the “villainy of the Bombs”. So wrote
Morley to Minto “Your line considering the latitudes in which you live and move and have your
official being is likely to be for a policy of repression. Mine will here be towards the drag-chain on
the random violence”.2 Minto, though not unwilling to introduce reforms, approved of Repression
also and enforced a series of repressive measures like the Explosive Act, the Indian Criminal Law
Amendment Act, the Press Act of 1908, etc. The attitudes of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy
can be distinguished by these statemeitts: Lord Morley wrote, “If reforms do not save the Raj,
nothing else will.” Minto replied, “The Raj will not disappear in India.... because we shall fight for the
Raj

I Morley: Recollections, Vol. II, p. 240. 2 Moreley’s Indian Speeches, p. 40. Morley: Recollections, Vol.
II, p. 256.

“‘ Ultimately both of them agreed to initiate new Reform proposals on the fiftieth anniversary of
Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 So the Morley-Minto reforms can be said to be the direct
outcome of the Surat Split.

Results: This gain of the Morley-Minto reforms added to the strength of the Liberals and their
attitude to a rapproachment with the Extremists became unfavourable. Pheroze Shah regarded the
talk of a re-union mere ‘mawkish sentimentality’ and said, “For God’s sake, let us have done with all
inane and slobbery whine about unity where there is really none”.2

Further, the split gave a definite shape and form to the national movement and marked out a
definite course of action for the Indian nationalists. The Liberal creed crystallised in a clearer form.
Now there was no more mistaking about the aims and objects of the Congress. “If it has to some
extent thinned the ranks,” says Mazumdar, “of the nationalists, it has, on the other hand,
strengthened the movement by laying its foundation upon a sure, concrete basis and by investing it
with the unassailable character of a constitutional organisation completely divested of wild fancies
and feverish excitement and impatient idealism.”3 The Congress creed became at once clear and
unambiguous and above ‘dialectical chicanery’.’

Furthermore, the split displayed the virility of the budding Indian nationalism. It was an eye-opener
to the foreigner that the Indian national movement was not merely an emotional effusion but its

97
roots had gone down into the souls of the Indian patriots. And because the motives of both the
parties were pure patriotism, their rivalry for the national cause not only strengthened the
movement but also

1 John Buchan: ‘Lord Minto’, pp. 275-76.

2 H. P. Mody: ‘Pheroze Shah’, Vol. II, p. 549.

3 A. C. Mazunidar: ‘Indian National Evolution’, p. 118.

4 H. P. Mody: ‘Pheroze Shah, Vol. II., p. 547.

focussed the attention of those who had shown apathy towards it.

Again, the split laid the beginning of the party system in India. Like the Liberals and the
Conservatives in England or the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.A., India now had her
‘Moderates’ and ‘Extremists’. It is, however, noteworthy that the very designations applied to the
two sections of the nationalists still implied that they belonged to one camp essentially, and differed
only in their methods of work.

98
CHAPTER VI: THE MO R LEV-M INTO AND MONT FORD REFORMS
AND THE FOUNDATION OF ‘THE ALL INDIA NATIONAL LIBERAL
FEDERATION
After the Split: The Liberals falsified the predictions of their opponents that Surat would prove to be
the grave of the ‘Moderatist’ Indian National Congress. They adopted a new constitution for the
Congress ignoring all the ob-jections raised by the New Party to their proposals. It was urged that
the “Rump” Congress had no mandate to thrust a new Constitution on the National Assembly. Dr.
Rash Behary replied, “In a wilderness, a man should take the track which will carry him home and
should not stand crying: ‘Where is the king’s highway, I walk nowhere but on the king’s highway’.”1

Surat could not damp the spirit of the New Party either. On the contrary they began to take a livelier
interest in public life. One provincial conference after another revealed the increasing popularity of
the new political creed. The New Party was closer to the people in that it identified itself with the
tenant, the labourer, the under-fed and the unemployed. Its ideology made a strong appeal to the
youth of the country. “The extremer the gospeller the more does he command the ear of the
multitude”.3 “The name ‘Moderates’ and the temper it describes bring no appeal to the young and
to the ardent.”3 The sage counsel of the Moderates found it difficult to penetrate to those subter-
ranean regions of society which were moved to their inmost depths by the martyrdoms of the
heroes of the Extremists.

1)r. Rash liehary: Presidential Address, I. N. C., Madras, 1908, Presidential Addresses, p. 781.

C. Y. Chintainani: Indian Politics since the Mutniy, p. 61. 3 Macuicol: The Making of Modern India, p.
11.

Meanwhile, political discontent had been increasing steadily. England had certainly failed to satisfy
‘the hunger’ of Indians,’ and at the first touch of calamity they went down the precipice.2 This
discontent was as wide as it was deep. The educated classes hungered for place and power. One
might put up with an alien benefactor, but an alien malefactor could never be endured. The Liberals
had made the educated classes aware of their rights and wrongs and they were irritated by that
awareness of their rights and their helplessness to assert them. Their British rulers believed in the
maxim “Noblesse oblige” and took delight in bestowing favours but not in sharing power with the
ruled. The day of patriarchal government in India was, however, now fast receding.

Furthermore, Parliament, the supreme governing autho-rity for India, seemed to be too immobile. It
took any active interest in Indian affairs only when British interests might be at stake. The number of
Indians going to England and other Continental countries was, however, now growing every decade.
They watched the working of democratic institutions and popular movements abroad and returned
with new inspirations. The condition of Indians in South Africa pinched India. The expansion of the
Councils and the increased powers of criticism and interpellations only whetted their appetite for
more fruitful political activity. Even Curzon’s administrative reforms added to the growth of the
popular movement. Partition, a “settled fact” but “an unsettled question”, had ignited the
discontent into disaffection. Swadeshi and boycott called for greater sacrifices. Above all, repression
by the Government was fast hardening a section of the nationalists into irreconcilables.

The Situation in 1908: The Making of Modern India, by Mac

99
nicol.

2 Gokhale’s speech on England’s Duty to India at the National Literary Club, London, Gokale’s
Speeches, p. 932,

Apart from the rise of the ‘Extremists’ and the terrorists, the most disquieting feature of the political
scene was the increasing alienation of the Muslims from the nationalist camp. A separate political
organisation of their own was set up by the Muslims under the name of the Muslim League in 1906
to press for their communal interests. The birth of communal politics that it presaged was one of the
toughest problems that the Indian Liberals had to deal with in later times, and so the foundation of
the Muslim League in 1906 would appar to be nearly as important in the context of this thesis’ as the
rise of ‘extremism’.

It would appear to be incontestable that the British Go-vernment had a large and decisive hand in
the foundation of the Muslim League and the rise of communalism in Indian politics. As early as
1883-84, they had made provision for nominated seats for the Muslims on communal basis. Lord
Minto, like Bampfylde Fuller, confessed to Lady Minto in a private letter his liking for the
Mohammedans,2 and to Lord Morley that “there is much that is absolutely disloyal in the (Congress)
movement and that there is much danger for the future I have been thinking a good deal lately of a
possible counterpoise to Congress aims”.” After the ‘command performance’’ of the Simla
Deputation of the League (1906) which Maulana Shibli described as ‘the biggest show staged on the
communal platform’,° Minto assured the Muslim deputationists that “their political rights and
interests as a community” would be safeguarded in any future administrative reorganisation.°
Morley approved of

1 The history of the origin & the working of the Muslim League has been recently fully discussed by
Dr. Lal Bahadur: See his ‘The Muslim League’ (Agra (1954). pp. 40-45.

2 Buchan: Lord Minto, pp. 222-223.

3 Countess of Minto: India, Minto & Morley, pp. 28-29.

4 Maulana Mohd. Ali: Presidential Address, Coconada Congress, 1923 Presidential Addresses, p. 620.

Muslim Gazette of Lucknow, quoted in the ‘Communal Triangle’ by Mehta & Patwardhan,
(Allahabad, II ed., 1924), p. 29.

° Barter* Constitutional Documents, Vol. II, pp. 207-209.

Minto’s speech fully as preventing “the ranks of sedition from being swollen by Muslim recruits—an
inestimable advantage in the day of trouble.which was drawing”.1 The immediate result of these
official assurances was the foundation of the Muslim League on December 30, 1906 to promote
loyalty to the British Government and to protect and advance the political rights and interests of the
Muslim community. Even a recent British writer has opined that “whatever may have been the other
effects of the foundation of the Muslim League, it set the seal upon the Muslim belief that their
interest must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of
the two communities was possible.”2

100
It is clear from the above that while the Liberal Congress was still labouring under the implicit
hostility of the Government, a section of the nationalist movement had grown defiant of its
authority and guidance, and Government had by active support also created a communal
organisation of the Muslims to undermine the influence of Liberals and Extremists alike and to divide
the people of India in regard to their political objectives into two political communities. The cult of
the bomb, the thunders of ‘Lal. Bal-Pal’, and now the sinister demands of the Muslim communalists
had alike to be fought by the Liberals before they could exert any effective pressure upon an
unsympathetic and hostile Government. These facts have to be borne in mind in assessing the part
that they played in the politics of the country during the next decade.

Repression: The political situation as it developed from day to day presented varied difficulties.
Many Ter-rorist outrages occurred or were attempted in the Summer

Buchan: Lord Minto, p. 244.

2 Sir P. Griffiths: The British Impact on India’, p. 309.

of 1908.’ Minto demanded permission to seize the Presses and pass an Explosives Act and in general
a free hand to deal with the situation. Morley yielded to the extent of allowing the enactment of an
Explosives Act, the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act to provide for more speedy trial of some
offences dangerous to public peace, and a Press Act to deal with seditious newspapers. The
Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act of 1907 had already authorised the Government to proclaim an
area and prohibit public meetings in it. An old Regulation of 1818 was revived to detain political
suspects without trial.

Minto felt that these measures had struck the Bengalis with terror,’ but he also felt that “Indians
would have to be recognised and allowed to assist in the government of their country”“ as a hid to
divert the younger generation from the Congress and to placate them.’ By August 15, 1907, he ac-
cordingly set up a committee to consider the question of further reforms, and a year later, he was
able to outline a scheme of reforms to ;Morley.” The Reform proposals thus originated with Minto
but he later resisted some of the more radical measures that Morley suggested during the course of
their lengthy correspondence during the gestation of the Reforms. Morley favoured the admission of
Indians to the Viceroy’s or his own Council. He introduced elections, and was in favour of allowing
full discussion of the budget. He was even prepared to do without an official majority in the
Provincial Councils but not at the centre The Liberal leaders, who were in a better position to judge
of the matter,

I Attempt to derail Sir Andrew Fraser’s train (April 30, 1908); accidental death of Mr. & Mrs. Kennedy
by bomb thrown to kill Mr. Kingsford, a Calcutta judge; several bomb factories unearthed—riots at
Pandharpur, Nagpur and Bombay on Tilak’s prosecution.

2 Countess of Minto: India, Minto R Morely (193’1), pp. 257-258.

Ibid., p. 97.

Ibid., p. 104.

For Minto’s first proposals, see Countess of Minto: India, Minto & Morley, pp. 99-100.

101
were, however, greatly impressed by the sincerity of Morley. Minto was deeply suspicious of
Gokhale whom he accused of failure to discourage sedition and of ‘playing with fire.’

The Morley-Minto Reforms and Their Genesis: For a complete elucidation of the circumstances that
led to the passing of the Morley-Minto reforms, however, we have to go back earlier. Gokhale had
declared in his Budget Speech in 1906 that “What the country needs at this moment above
everything else is a government national in spirit even though it may be foreign in personnel”.2 He
also proceeded to England to plead the cause of reform with Morley and had five important
interviews with him in 1907. He made a profound and favourable impression on British Statesmen of
all parties and specially so on Lord Morley by the accuracy of his information and the cogency of his
arguments. “The information thus imparted influenced in no small degree the concessions granted
in the Morley-Minto reforms”.3 Morley was accused of acting under the malign influence of an
astute Hindu because of these interviews, and Lord Lansdowne even warned him of it by an
anecdote of Dr. Johnson in which the Doctor explained the stopping of his visits to a Scotsman (One
Dr. John Campbell) lest “the Scotch people around here swear that (I) got all (his great and wise
sayings) from Dr. Campbell!”

The other great Liberal leader who may be credited with having influenced the enactment of the
Morley-Minto reforms was Sir Pheroze Shah Mehta. The Aga Khan stated in his Memorial Address on
Pherozeshah in 1915 that “he did a great work for India in helping to form and guide a body of
Moderate opinion which encouraged Lord Morley and Lord Minto to shape their great reform
scheme on libe

1 Minto’s letter to Morley, Aug. 7, 1907, Ibid., p. 150.

2 Gokhale’s Speeches, p, 126.

3 Sahani: ‘G. K. Gokhale’, p. 180.

4 V. S. Srinivas Sastri: ‘Life of Gopal Krishna Gokhale’, (Bangalore, 1937), p. 65.

ralising lines”.’ The Bombay correspondent of the Capital described the Morley-Minto Reforms as a
personal triumph of Pherozeshah and said, “It is not too much to say that Sir Pherozeshah Mehta is
so completely identified with this great measure of relief as Daniel O’Connell with Catholic
Emancipation “.2 Pherozeshah’s biographer, paraphrasing Lecky’s remarks about Daniel O’Connell
on Catholic Emancipation, observed that just as Emancipation would doubtlessly have been at length
conceded as a boon and it would have been most certainly accompanied and qualified by a veto,
similarly the goal of responsible government would ultimately have been reached even without
Pherozeshah but the measure of advance would have been halting and slow and not so peaceful.”
Mr. R. C. Dint also made certain useful suggestions to Morley.*

Gokhale’s direct contribution to the making of the re-forms may perhaps be studied in some more
detail. In the memorandum submitted by Gokhale to Viscount Morley in September 1908,5 Gokhale
recommended the raising of most provinces to Governor’s provinces with small executive councils
containing one or two Indian members and suitable legislative councils with elected majorities and
more or less complete control over their legislation and budgets. He wanted further extension of
local self-government functions of the local boards all over the country.

102
A comparison between the points in Gokhale’s note and Morley’s scheme of proposed reforms will
show that there was pointed similarity between the two., It was bound to be, for the reforms
recommended by Gokhale were not

Quoted by Mody in ‘Sir Pherozeshah MeMa’, p. 572. 2 Ibid., pp. 572-573.

a Ibid., p. 574.

* Papers relating to Constitutional Reforms in India (1908) , Vol. III, No, 1477—letters dated March
11 & 26, 1908.

6 Memorandum by I-Ion’ble Mr. G. K. Gokhale, Cr. I. E., No. 144, 1481 XXIX Vol. III. Papers relating to
Constitutional Reforms in India, Calcutta, 1908.

different in character from the reforms recommended by the Government of India and other
accredited authorities. Gokhale said, “that Lord Morley has taken some hints from my note-paper is
no wonder because my note-paper runs along the lines of the Government’s own
recommendations.’’’ Giving the reasons for his moderate proposals he says, “Supposing I had
recommended some drastice reforms and no government approved of them and Morley found it
necessary to reject them, then those people would have said, “Here is the Hindu gentleman
supposed to he wise. making wild and impossible recommendations; no doubt, you arc in a safe
position to criticise me, one way or another, we Indian politicians must come under your lash.”2
Besides, Morley had already warned Gokhale that “for reasonable reforms, there (is) now an
unexpected chance—we are quite in earnest....II your speakers or newspapers set to work to belittle
what we do to clamour for the impossible, then all will go wrong.”“

The Reforms: The Morley-Minto Reforms certainly constituted an advance on the existing conditions
in India. The total strength of the Legislative Councils was increased from 124 to 331 and the number
of elected members was raised from 39 to 135. A majority of non-official members was introduced
in Provincial Legislatures, not in the centre. Now resolutions could be moved on matters of general
public interest; and annual budgets could be discussed more freely; and supplementaries could be
asked. An Indian member was appointed to the Viceroy’s Council and the honour was given to Mr.
Sinfia. The members of the Executive Councils of Madras and Bombay were increased and power
was given to appoint an Indian member to each. Besides, the Viceroy, with the assent of the
Secretary of State could create

Gokhale by V. S. Srinivas Sastri, p. 65.

2 Ibid., p. 65.

3 Countess of Minto: India, Minto & Morley, pp. 99-100.

an executive council in any other province. The principle of election was ‘legally’ admitted.

Although the scheme of Reforms gave Indians much wider opportunities for the expression of their
views and provided a machinery by which the representatives of the people would be in a position
to bring to bear upon the Government not anything like direct influence but indirect moral
pressure,’ yet the element of responsibility, as admitted by the Viceroy himself in the opening
speech in 1921, was entirely lacking. The ultimate decision rested in all cases with the Government

103
and the Councils were left no functions save that of criticism. The principle of autocracy, though
much qualified, was still maintained and the attempt to blend it with the constitutionalism of the
West could but postpone for a short period the need for reconstruction on more radical lines.’ The
power of the Executive was left unimpaired.’

Appreciation of the Reforms by the Moderates: It would be interesting to notice the remarks on
reforms of the one person who had a large share in their making. Gokhale analysed the Reforms at
the Congress of 1908 from various points of view. According to him, at the base we would have full
control over management of our local affairs. The fabric of local self-government started by Lord
Ripon was to be carried to a proper and fitting completion. That itself was a most important thing.

‘Then as regards the centre, in Gohale’s opinion the position would be largely modified as to amount
almost to a revolution Under the new arangement all ques

A Nation in Making, p. 277.

2 Proceedings of the Central Assembly, Vol. I, 1921.

3 “If 1 were attempting to set up a Parliamentary System in India, or if it could be said that this
chapter of reforms led directly neces-sarily up to the establishment of a Parliamentary System in
India, I for one would have nothing at all to do with it.” Morley’s Speeches, p. 91.

tions affecting every-day administration which involved matters of public importance could be
brought in a responsible manner before those in the Legislative Councils. In these Councils again a
non-official majority had been provided for.

Then in regard to finance our control would be greater. Lastly, Indians were to be admitted to the
Executive Councils which meant that in formulating policies and determining large questions racial
considerations would recede into the background.

More than this, non-official majority in the provincial council really meant a preventive control over
provincial legislation.

Speaking of the general effects of the Reforms, Gokhale pointed out. “hitherto we have been
engaged in agitation from outside. From now we shall be engaged in what might be called
responsible association with the administration ...”‘ These concessions, he further said, “impose
upon us two responsibilities in particular; the first is that a spirit of cooperation with the
Government must now be evoked amongst us, instead of mere criticism of Government The second
is that the new powers should be exercised with moderation and with restraint and that they should
be used solely for the promotion of the interest of the masses of the people”.” Concluding the
budget speech of 1909, Gokhale said, “That passage in Lord Morley’s speech in the House of Lords
foreshadowing Mr. Sinha’s appointment, with its phrase ‘one of the.King’s equal subjects’ has
touched a chord

Indian hearts which will keep vibrating for some time. It is a passage which will live in the history of
this country, in any case it will remain engraved in the hearts of the people

John Hoyland: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, (Y.M.C.A. Publishing Home, Calcutta, 1933), p. 158.

104
21bid., p. 199.

3 Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 183.

Commenting on the Reforms, Pherozeshah declared, that it was a very genuine effort, and he was
more than pleased. It bore out, what he had always maintained, namely, that any substantial step in
reforming the Constitutional machinery could only come from the Liberal Party.’

Criticism by Liberal Statesmen: The worst feature of these reforms was the Rules and Regulations
framed under the Act by which separate electorates were recognised by the. Government.

A deputation of the London Branch of the All India Muslim League waited upon the Secretary of
State in order to represent to him the views of the Musalmans on the projected Indian reforms. The
deputationists demanded three things They demanded the election of their own representatives to
these Councils in all the stages. Secondly, they wanted a number of seats in excess of their numerical
strength. Their third demand was that if there was a Hindu on the Viceroy’s Executive Council, there
should be two Indian members on the Viceroy’s Council, and that one should be a Mohammedan.
Morley refused the third request saying, “I sec no chance whatever of our being able to comply with
your present request”.2 He repeated his decision in his speech of the House of Lords on March 1.
1909. -I told them and as I now tell your Lordships, I see no chance of whatever of meeting their
views in that way to any extent at all.” But he recognised that the difference between
Mohammedanism and Hinduism was not a mere difference of articles of religious faith. It. was a
difference in life, in tradition, in history, in all the social things as well as articles of belief that
constitute a communit V.4 This

The Times of India, December 18, 1908.

2 Morley’s Speech—Parliamentary Debates (House of Lords), 1909, Vol. 1, February 16 to May 26,
pp. 125-126.

Ibid., p. 126. •

4 Morley’s Speech, House of Lords, Vol. I, February 16 and May 26, p. 126.

demand for separate electorate was objected to by several Indian statesmen on the ground that it
would kill the growth of Indian Nationality. Morley was faced with a difficult situation. Though he
was not in favour of separate electorates and was cautious of the fact that ‘we have to take care
that in picking up the Musalman we don’t drop our Hindu parcels’,’ but he said, “If I have to pay the
price in order to get what I believe a good progressive constitution for India, let me pay it. May be a
fortunate generation coming later on will be able to get rid of it.”2 So he granted the separate
electorates. Gokhale, pledged to Hindu-Muslim unity as an article of faith of his ‘Servants of India
Society’, thus observed:

“Unfortunately this is a pernicious doctrine that any community in India should abstract itself from
the general nationality and for election purposes consider itself a separate unit. This will impede the
growth of nationalist sense in the country. Nevertheless there is that feeling we must compromise
with that feeling.”‘ His compromise’ was that there should be all over the country a territorial
election at first in which Hindus and Mohammedans should take part without any discrimination.

105
The Mohammedans would obtain a certain amount of representation from the general electorates.
Then to the extent that representation was inadequate to the interests of the Muslim Community,
there should be supplementary elections confined to the Mohammedans later on just to supply this
deficiency in Connnunal quota. ‘But mind, upon no ground is there to be any proposition in excess of
the population to be given to them.’ With these limitations he supported separate electorates.
Gokhale was not prepared to ac

1 Buchan: Lord Minto, p. 289.

2 Quoted in Gopal Krishna Gokhale by Shastri, p. 104.

3 8C4 Srinivas Sastri: ‘Gopal Krishna Gokhale’, p. 107.

cede to Muslim demand for a larger representation than they were justly entitled to, on grounds
such as special importance anti higher loyalty. The recognition of importance of a community
implied the inferiority of others. The question of loyalty also did not appeal to him. British rule was
based on equal treatment for all Communities.’ Morley in the House of Lords did a double wrong to
the Hindus.’ Having agreed to grant separate representation he forgot that it was to come after the
operation of general election and gave his word that Muslims were to have their whole
representation through separate electorates. The second wrong was that the excessive
representation that should have been denied was also granted.

This item of representation was vehemently criticised. Pandit Bishan Narayan Dar, a prominent
Liberal, in his presidential address at Calcutta in 1911 characterised it as “a disintegrating agency by
which sectional interests come to claim first regard of every member... .”‘ Similarly Rao Bahadur R.
N. Mudholkar at Bankipur in 1912 said,

the Congress has in view of existing circumstances recognised the expediency of adopting it; but the
principle on which it is allowable has to be given to.... Hindus when they are in a minority as has
been done in case of the Mohatumedans”.4 But lie was sure that it would retard the concord and
harmony between Mohammedans and Hindus, obstruct the intellectual and political advancement
of the Mohammedans themselves, and the growth of a sturdy catholic public spirit and life amongst
them.5

On the floor of the Legislative Assembly Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya also criticised the prnciple but
against him

1 Speech at a public meeting under the auspices of the Decca Sabha, Poona, on the 4th July, 1900.
Gokhale’s Speeches, pp. 998-999.

2 Srinivas Sastri: G. K. Gokhale, p. 109.

a Congress Presidential. Addresses, Vol. II, pp. 22-23.

4 & 6Ibid., p. 71.

Gokhale argued that it was for the better to acquiesce in it than to oppose, and use all chances of a
peaceful working of the constitution. Even then it was said that on account of ‘Hindu intrigue’ in

106
London the reforms were not favourable to Muslims! The intriguer was Gokhale who had to
vindicate his position by writing a letter to the Times to prove his innocence in the matter.’

Reforms and the Liberal Party: ‘The grant of the Morley-Minto Reforms vindicated the position of
the Liberal Party. They were, after all, not crying in the wilderness and were not ploughing the sands
of the seashore! Their existence was recognised even by the Government who felt the necessity of
‘rallying thenf.2 The introduction of Reforms cleared the conscience of the Liberals that they were
serving the land of their birth and not playing the game of the foreign rulers. It further strengthened
their confidence in their constitutional methods and in India’s Providential association with the
British Empire though Mr. S. P. Sinha certainly gave an exaggerated expression to his party’s attitude
at the time when he said to Lady Minto that, “If the English left India in a body, we should have to
telegraph to Aden and get them to return as fast as they could, for in a couple of days India would be
in chaos”.” The Liberals now secured an opening through the new Councils to contribute their mite
to the cause of the country and made the best of it. Despite Morley’s categorical denial of the
establishment of a parliamentary system in India, India got a weapon of criticism which that system
sought to inculcate and pave through the inevitable deadlocks of a system permitting criticism and
obstruction of Government without responsibility, the way to further progress to self-government.

The Working of the Reforms: The new institutions

I See Gokhale’s letter in the Times, Monday, April 19, 1909. Gokhale’s Speeches, pp. 980-983.

2 Morley’s Speeches, p. 40.

3 Lord Minto by Buchan, p. 227.

279. Banerjee’s Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. II. pp. 278-

under the Reforms began under good auspices and both the Government and the Liberals evinced a
desire to work them in a conciliatory spirit. According to the Mont-Ford Report:

In the eight years (1910-17) the Indian Legislative Council passed 131 bills of which no fewer than 77
or 59 per cent. were passed without any discussion whatsoever. It could be possible because the
Government took care to ascertain as far as possible non-official opinion, and in the light of
suggestions so obtained pruned their bills of all features expected to arouse controversy. ‘Though
still the constructive work of the legislation was largely done by correspondence, the nonofficial
members made their weight felt. “Much of the most solid and useful work in the sphere of
legislation is done in the seclusion of the Committee room and not in the publicity of the Council
Chamber”.

Since 1909 only eight bills can be said to have en-countered really serious opposition. Only five
private bills were passed.

The fact that nearly twice as many questions were asked in 1917 as in 1911 shows that serious value
was attached to the right of interrogation. It cannot be said that the right of interrogation was
abused. In all 168 resolutions were moved in the Council up till the end of the year 1917: of these 24
were accepted by Go-vernment, 68 were withdrawn, and 76 were rejected. In not a few instances
substantial results were obtained. Liberal Resolutions in the Legislatures: By far the

107
most important non-official measure proposed was Gokhale’s

Bill (March 16, 1911) on Elementary Education in the Re

formed Imperial Legislative Council of 1910 to which refer

ence has been made in Chapter V.

The second achievement of Gokhale was his drawing of the Government of India’s particular
attention to the Indentured Indian labourers in British Colonies. In 1912, he sailed for South Africa at
the invitation of Mr. M. K. Gandhi with the sanction and encouragement of the Colonial Office and
the Government of India in order to seek some means of redressing the grievances of Indians,
indentured and others in that country. He was able to extract from the South African authorities a
promise of better treatment of Indians in a variety of ways.

Surendranath Banerjea, as a member of the Imperial Legislative Council (1913-1916) moved a

resolution in March, 1913, recommending the separation of the judicial and executive functions in
the administration of criminal justice. Every non-official Indian member supported it, but it was
negatived by the vote of the official majority. The resolution, though negatived, formed the subject
of a despatch to the Secretary of State but it was rejected by the India Council on ground of finance.
Besides this, he moved resolutions regarding the Press Act, Education, recommenda-tions of the
Decentralisation Commission relating to the expansion of Local Self-Government, the appointment
of an Advisory Committee to deal with internees, etc. In March, 1914, he moved a resolution
recommending that the Presidents of District and local boards be elected. The resolution was lost.
What Mr. Banerjea failed to do as a member he accomplished later as minister of Local Self-
Government in Bengal. By a resolution of March 1916, Banerjea proposed that the University of
Calcutta should be autonomous and that the Chancellor should be the Governor of the province
instead of the Viceroy. The resolution was accepted by Sir Sankaran Nair on behalf of the
Government.

In February, 1916, Chimanlal Setalvad introduced a bill entitled ‘Hindu and Muslim Disposition of
Property Bill’ whose object was to enable Hindus and Muslims to make

F. 23

bequests to or trusts in favour of unborn persons subject to certain limitations provided in the
Transfer of Property Act. Save some orthodox sections, most of the Hindus approved of the Bill.
Owing to misapprehension of the provisions of the Bill, the Muslims, however, opposed it. The Bill,
as amended by the Select Committee, was passed in a more limited form for Hindus only and
entitled the ‘Hindu Disposition of Property Act’. By section 5, power was given to the Governor-
General to extend the Act to the Khojas, if they so desired.

In the Provincial Govenments the appointments of Indians to the Executive Councils of Governors
did not reflect public opinion. In Bengal, the Maharaja of Burdwan, in Bihar the Maharaja of
Darbhanga, and in the U.P. the Raja of Mahmudabad were appointed Executive Councillors. In
Bombay, it was expected that Pherozeshah Mehta, failing him Chandavarkar, then a judge of the
High Court, would be appointed, but Lord Sydenham did not want any person who was or had been
in active politics in India to he the member of the Executive Council. Naturally his choice fell upon

108
Chaubal and when the latter went on deputation to teh Public Service Commission, the acting
appointment was given to Prabha Shankar Pattani who was supposed to be ‘unpolluted’ by politics.
A change came when Sydenham was succeeded by Lord Willingdon. Sir Ibrahim Rahim-tullah was
appointed Chaubal’s successor.

As regards the work of Provincial Legislatures under the reforms, the overall achievements are not
unsatisfactory. In the budget discussion on July 10, Raffiuddin Ahmed pleaded in the Bombay
Legislative Council for the appointment of more Mohammedans in the higher responsible posts—
including those of judges of High Courts. Setalvad opposed him by saying, “I feel strongly that it will
be an evil day if ever the idea is allowed to prevail that in filling these offices, it was not efficiency
but communal interests that were to be

kept in view”) In subsequent years, however, the Government yielded to the cry of Communal
representation in the services also.

After the report of the Decentralisation Commission of 1908, Provincial Governments including
Bombay had demanded additional powers of taxation. Pheroze Shah Mehta opposed the move on
the ground that such power would be meaningless until the enlarged Councils were so constituted
as to represent the people more effectively.

Pheroze Shah, Chimanlal Setalvad, Chintamani and Hirdaynath Kunzru fought for the expansion of
primary and higher education. Protesting against the raising of fees in the Bombay Legislative
Council on March 15, 1911, Pheroze Shah Mehta said that in England the institutions for secondary
and higher education were provided by the possessors of great wealth, i.e., the landlords. “It is the
Government in India who is the greatest and the universal landlord. The Government as constituted
in this country occupies the same position which the landed aristocracy ....once occupied. Therefore
a special and peculiar liability rests upon the English Government in India to make liberally and
generously the same provisions which were.... made in England.”2 On Sep. 28, 1912, Mehta said at a
meeting of the Bombay Legislative Council, that “It was the blunder of the Government to think that
they had no responsibility for higher education. It was not only an educational blunder, but a
political error for the State to take up an attitude of that sort with regard to the momentous
question of higher education in the Presidency.”3

No account of the Morley-Minto Councils, however brief, can be complete unless a reference is
made .to an Act of repression, viz., the Press Act of 1910. It was the first

1 Recollections and Reflections by Chiman Lal Setalvad, p. 248.

2 Ibid., pp. 250-251.

3 ibid., p. 251,

legislative measure that the reformed Council placed on the statute book to put down scurrilous
writings in the Press. It is said that in its original form, it was draconian; its rigour was modified when
the Law Member (S. P. Sinha) refused to become a party to it. Mr. Sinha was subjected to great
public ridicule. The Act did incalculable harm to the growth of a free and healthy press in India.

109
Political Situation: The Government with the boon of reforms in one hand and repression embodied
in measures like the Press Act in the other. however, found it still difficult to grapple with the
political situation. ‘Extremism,’ despite deportations and internment without trial, was by no means
cowed down. The Government regarded conciliation as a sign of weakness, although the fear of
being regarded as weak was perhaps a much greater weakness. This made the situation still more
complicated.

The Position of the Congress: The Congress, which was now a Liberal body, found itself in a position
of peculiar difficulty. The widespread lawlessness and disorder weakened its position and the
Government expected its support in quelling extremism. The Congress could neither support the
forces of disorder nor could it be a party to repression. It denounced lawlessness and repression in
the same breath, and requested the Government to use conciliation in place of repression. The
Government did not hearken to their counsel of wisdom. It was forging one after another measures
of repression for muzzling the press, closing the platform and placing educational institutions’ under
strict vigi-lance.

The Royal Visit: British statesmanship took another step to improve the situaton. The visit of the
King-Emperor in 1911 was designed to stimulate loyalist sentiment in India. The royal message of
goodwill and confidence appealed to the hearts of the people. His Majesty announced the
annulment of the Partition of Bengal and the

transfer of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi at the Coronation Dunbar in Delhi on Dec. 12, 1911.
Bengal welcomed the message with great joy. The much hated Curzon Partition was also at last
undone simultaneously. It was another victory of the Liberal policy which forged a link of co-
operation between the Liberals and the British Empire. Pandit Bishan Narayan Dar, paying a tribute
to Bengal, said, “The victory is due to the justice and righteousness of our rulers, but it is also due to
the heroic courage and self-sacrifice of those selfless and patriotic leaders, who through all the
storm that raged round them and the clouds of sorrow and suffering that darkened their path,

“Saw the distant gates of Eden gleam,

And did not dream it was a dream,”

who retained their undying faith in their cause and an im-movable trust in British justice.”‘

The appointment of Lord Hardinge as Viceroy augured well for India but the throwing of the bomb at
him while he was making a formal state entry in Delhi was not only a heinous crime but a serious
political blunder. But credit is due to His Excellency that even then he did not give up his policy of
trust and confidence in the people.

Outbreak of the World War I: When the war broke out in 1914, all parties in India, except the
terrorist group, declared their support and loyalty to the British Empire. Gandhiji was at that time in
England. A letter dated Aug. 14, signed by Gandhi, Mrs. Naidu, Major N. P. Sinha, Dr. Jivaraj Mehta
and 50 others was sent to Mr. Roberts, the Under-Secretary of State for India, offering their services
to the authorities.2 Some students and other residents placed before Gandhi the view that it was an
opportunity for making a hold declaration of the Indian demand. Gandhi

‘Report of the Indian National Congress at Calcutta in Decem• ber, 1911, Presidential Address, p. 14.

110
2 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. I, p. 187.

argUed that England’s need should not be turned into India’s opportunity. Even Tilak, liberated, on
June 17, observed, “It is the duty of every Indianto support and assist His Majesty’s Government to
the best of his ability”.’

The 1914 Qongress2 passed a resolution conveying its devotion to the throne and allegiance to the
British connection and its firm resolve to stand by the Empire at all hazards and at all costs. By
another resolution the Congress noted with gratitude the despatch of Indian Expeditionary Force to
the theatre of war and thanked the Viceroy for affording an opportunity of showing that, as equal
subjects of His Majesty, they were prepared to fight in defence of right and justice and the cause of
the Empire. By yet another resolution it was urged to throw open the higher offices in the Army to
Indians and to establish military schools and colleges where they might be trained for a military
career. By another resolution a request was made to so modify the Arms Act that carrying of arms
should be made easier. By a resolution on ‘Reciprocity’ the Congress expressed the view that the
Crown in calling for the equality of India with the colonies in suffering and sacrifice for the Empire
had implicitly and de-facto acknowledged her equality with them in the Em-pire and in Resolution 10
it asked that the equality might be recognised de jure.

There was thus on the occasion a phenomenal demons-tration of Indian loyalty to the British Empire
falsifying all the prophets of doom who had hitherto looked upon India as a rebellious dependency.
The reason was that Liberal India was deeply suspicious of Germany and its autocracy. On the other
hand, the parliamentary democracy of England,

1 Tendulkar’s Mehatma, Vol. I, p. 190.

2 Report of the proceedings of 29th Indian National Congress at Madras, 1914, pp. 1-3,

‘Presidential Address at Bombay Congress, 1915 by S. P. Sinha, p. 187.

despite the remissness of Anglo-Indian administration, had created a profound impression on her.
Moreover, the Liberals, who were the spokesmen of the country, dominated not only the Congress
but other agencies of public opinion. The Extremists had not been able to form a separate
organisation hitherto owing to drastic repression and the imprisonment of their leaders. So all public
life crystallised round the Congress alone, and the Liberal Party that dominated the Congress felt
convinced that the salvation of the country lay in the British connection and that England’s victory
meant the victory of truth and justice, over the cult of naked militarism.

India’s services in the War were very laudable. Her forces served in more than one theatre of war.
She helped with the provisions of munitions, transport, medical personnel and equipment and in a
variety of other ways. India paid the cost of the maintenance of her troops. She gave huge war loans
to England. Thus, she stood shoulder to shoulder with other dominions of the British Empire by the
side of Britain in the hour of her sorest trial. “In the great galaxy of heroes, in the imperishable roll of
honour, there are now, and there will never cease to be, beloved Indian names testifying to the fact
that our people would rather die unsullied than outlive the disgrace to surrender to a bastard
civilisation.”‘

111
Effects of the War on India: The War infused a fresh zeal and galvanised Indians into a new life.
England en-tered the war to champion the cause of truth and justice and to protect the rights of the
weak against the strong. India expected that after the War ‘to save Democracy’ and to confer the
right of self-determination on subject peoples, these advantages would also be extended to her.
India got an opportunity to demonstrate her loyalty to these principles

1 Report of the Thirty-Frrst I.N.C., held at Lucknow, 1916, p. 4.

2 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. I, p. 191.

and her value to the Empire. The economic pressure of the War affected the masses adversely and
those who had returned from the War drew a contrast between the French peasant’s independence
and prosperity and their own sad plight. Soldiers from Indian villages came into touch with a larger
life, a wider outlook and a knowledge of free countries and brought hack a memory of their brave
deeds with and against fine soldiers of other lands. Their national pride was touched when they
came to find that they were under ‘intolerable degradation’ in their own country.

The War brought home both to England and the Em-pire also the necessity of co-operation and
fellowship of the different units of the Empire. India, more than any other country, realised that it
was neither possible nor desirable to aim at sovereign independence at that stage of the evolution
of her political strength. It was an objective testimony of the success of the Liberal way of thinking.

But it was no wonder if India demanded reconsideration of her position by her rulers after the end
of the War. It was not a reward for her services that she demanded but something nobler. Pandit
jagat Narain, as Chairman of the reception committee at the Lucknow Congress in 1916, said, “She
(India) is not asking for rewards in return for her loyalty, but having fought in defence of human
freedom she expects that her own sons will no longer be denied their birthright as freemen”,1 The
same idea was expressed by Annie Besant, “India does not chaffer with the blood of her sons and
the proud tears of her daughters but claimed the right as a nation to justice among the people of the
Empire”.3 The worth of India’s contribution to the War effort was recognised both by the British
Government and the British people. Even the Times, the leading organ of Conservative opinion in
England, said, “On our part, when we have set

ALL INDIA NATIONAL LIBERAL FEDERATION 18 r

tied accounts with the enemy, India must be allowed a more ample place in the Councils of the
Empire”.’ The Review of Reviews said, “We have made promise of Self-Government to Egypt and it is
inconceivable that we should deny the same privilege to India”.2 English statesmen vied with one
another in acknowledging India’s help to the Empire. Asquith, the British Prime Minister, said,
“Henceforth Indian questions would have to be approached from a different angle of vision”.3
Montague and Roberts recommended improvement in Indian conditions. Hardinge said, “India
would be a true friend of the Empire, not a trusty dependent”.4

Under this oily surface of Indian politics there were troubled waters caused by the revolutionary
movements in Bengal and the Punjab. During 1913-16 political dacoities, hold-ups of people carrying
large sums of money, free use of bombs and pistols to kill English officers and policemen continued
with vigour. Besides, an unsuccessful attempt was made by Indian revolutionaries abroad to get help
from Germany to put through their schemes in India. Lala Har Dayal, the founder of the Ghadar

112
Party, through his paper called `Ghadar’, was organising his revolutionary work on a large scale. The
Ghadar Party had on its rolls people like Ram Chandra, Peshwani, Baraktulla, Pingley and Rahas
Behari,Basu. The Komagata Maru episode threw the Sikhs into paroxysm of rage. They were meted
out shabby treatment in British Columbia. They swelled the ranks of the terrorists. The Government
of India was inventing one after another repressive ordinances to punish these offenders and
occasionally some innocent people.

I Quoted by A. C. Mazumdar in ‘Indian National Evolution’, p. 413.

2 Ibid., p. 416.

3 Shastri’s pamphlet ‘Self-Government for India’ (A.I.S., Allaha-bad, 1916), p. 2.

4 Ibid., p. 2. F. 24

Advent of Mrs. Besant: The year 1914 brought along with the War another force into the politics of
India and this was the remarkable Irish lady, Mrs. Annie Besant. Her energies, hitherto occupied with
religious and social work, were now diverted to politics and breathed a fresh life into the national
movement.

At her instance, a resolution was moved by S. N. Banerjea in the Congress of 1914 urging the
Government to redeem the pledge of provincial Autonomy contained in the despatch of 1911 and
take measures for the recognition of India as a component part of a federated Empire. Dr. Besant
supported the resolution and asked the audience to practise the science and art of government in
local bodies and asked Congress to form a definite scheme of Self-Government. to present to
England after the war. Through the New India’ and ‘The Commonweal’ Mrs. Besartt made a vigorous
propaganda in favour of Self-Government. On New Year’s Day, 1915, it was proposed to start a
‘Madras Parliament’, i.e., a debating society which observed Parliamentary forms, for it was thought
that as we were aiming at Home Rule, it would be well to train ourselves in the careful study of
National problems.’

Rapproachment: Then with the blessings of Dada-bhai, Mrs. Besant started a Home Rule League on
August 31, 1916 to carry on an educative propaganda throughout the country which presaged a
significant attempt for broadbasing the national movement on the support of all groups. In the
beginning some Liberal leaders were against the formation of a new body, but by and by this
opposition dropped off. The Home Rule League so broadened the Congress platform that it paved
the way not only to absorb the Liberals and the Extremists but also the Congress and the Muslim
League, though later on this union led to the separation of

I Dr. Besant—The Future of Indian Politics, pp. 85-86.

the first two groups. Mrs. Besant wrote in the ‘Commonweal’ of Jan. 7, 1916 (p. 2): “It is absolutely
essential that the propaganda proposed for the Home Rule League and adopted by the Congress
shall go forward actively. Mr. C. Y. Chintamani began it nobly with his brilliant lecture on Self-
Government in Poona with Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak in the chair—the combination proclaiming the
reunion of the Right and Left Wings of the National Party—a necessary prelitni-nary to successful
action.”‘

113
Tilak started his Home Rule League in April, 1916 about six months before Mrs. Besant started hers.
The reason why two such bodies were formed is given by Besant: “Mr. Tilak formed one and I the
other, on the ground that some people loved him and hated me, and others hated him and loved
me; hence working-together-separately was the best policy.”2 A ‘Home Rule’ (English Auxiliary)
League was formed in England also to do its work in England.

After the Congress of 1916, both Mrs. Besant and Tilak toured the country and explained to the
people the significance of the Congress-League scheme which was proposed to be discussed shortly
afterwards. The Madras Government, thinking Besant to be the cause of the widespread agitation in
the country, demanded one security after another on her paper ‘New India’ and interned her with
Arundale and Wadia with a view to put a stop to her tremendous propaganda. This provoked the
people and liberal leaders like Motilal Nehru,* Chintamani, Ramaswami, etc., joined the Home Rule
League as a protest. In this connection Montague makes an interesting reference in his diary, “The
Ele-phanta caves are interesting I particularly liked Shiva who cut his wife into fifty-two pieces, only
to discover that

1 Quoted in the Future of Indian Politics, p. 106.

2 Ibid., p. 114.

He was also a Moderate in the beginning. He changed later under the spell of Gandhi,

1 An Indian Diary by Monatgue, p. 157.

2 P. Mukherji—Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. I, p. 696.

he had fifty-two wives! This is really what happens to the Government of India when it interns Mrs.
Besant.”1

People also wanted to start a ‘passive resistance’ movement to get the release of Mrs. Besant. At
this time Chamberlain resigned and Montagu took his place. He had first-hand experience of India,
having toured the country in 1912 as I.Jnder-Secretary of State for India. He rightly understood the
situation and prevailed upon the British Government to announce a new British Policy for India and
the result was the Declaration of August 20, 19172 that the goal of Great Britain in India was
Responsible Government and an announcement that the Secretary of State was coming to India. To
“obtain a calm atmosphere” the three internees were to he released. India’s gratitude to Mrs.
Besant culminated in raising her to the Presidential chair of the Congress in 1917 at Calcutta. It was,
indeed, a magnificent triumph of I Jnited India in which Mrs. Besant had a major share.

Triple Amalgamation: Before we enter upon a study of the next stage in the liberal movement, let us,
in brief. trace the circumstances leading to the rapproachment bet-ween different groups of
nationalists that took place under the impact of these new political considerations during the period
of the War, and in which the Liberal initiative was so prominent. The Surat split of 1907 had
embittered the relations of the Liberal leaders with the Extremists. Phe-rozeshah Mehta rejected all
proposals for the fusion of the two groups thereafter. But after his release Mr. Tilak him-self made
some statements which held a promise of the coming together of the two groups. He categorically

114
denied the charge that he ever worked “with the object of subverting British rule in India and
exhorted the people to support and assist His Majesty’s Government to the best of his ability.”‘
Gokhale, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Besant and others deemed it in the fitness of things to bring
about a compromise between the two groups. Article XX* of the Congress Constitution was an
obstacle in the way. It confined election of delegates to certain recognised associations. Besides, a
candidate had to subscribe to the avowed Congress creed. Gokhale, anxious for a compromise,
wrote a letter to Bhupendranath Basu two weeks before the Madras Congress “to so relax the
rigidity of our rules as to make it less humiliating to these countrymen (Extremists) of ours to rejoin
the Congress.”2 Negotiations were started with Tilak. Unhappily a cruel accusation was flung at Mr.
Gokhale touching his honour just before the Congress.3 Soon after Gokhale also felt disillusioned
and in his next confidential letter to Bhupendranath he wrote that his hopes were shattered because
Tilak told Mr. Subha Rao that though he accepted the Congress creed, he did not approve of the
present methods of the Congress. He wanted to pursue the Irish Policy of obstruction. His
programme was to address one demand to

1 Athalye: Lokamanya Tilak, p. 216.

* The right of electing Delegates to the Indian National Congress shall vest exclusively in (1) the
British Committee of the Congress; (2) Provincial or District or other Congress Committees or
Associations formed or affiliated as herein above laid down; and (3) such Political Associations or
Public Bodies of more than three years’ standing as may be recognised in that behalf by the
Provincial Congress Committee of the Province to which the Political Association or Public Body
belongs, provided that no such Political Association or Public Body shall be so recognised unless the
said Political Association or Public Body, by a Resolution at General Meeting of its members,
expresses its acceptance of the principles embodied in Article I of this Constitution and makes the
acceptance of the same a condition precedent to new membership

Congress Presidential Addresses, Appendix B, p. xviii.

2 Letter to Bhupendranath quoted by Mody in his Biography of Pherozehah Mehta, Vol. II, p. 654.

8 Besant: The Future of Indian Politics, p. 69.

the Government, i.e., the concession of Self-Government to India and till that was accepted he
would have nothing to do with legislatures and local and municipal bodies.’

Gokhale sent a message to Mrs. Besant asking her not to bring forward his proposal. She dropped
the proposal but placed before the subjects committee a suggestion that certain modifications
should be made in the rules for the election of delegates. Mrs. Besant telegraphed to Tilak that his
Opponents charged him with boycott of Government. Tilak promptly replied that “I had never
advocated ‘boycott of Government’ and that prominent Nationalists had served and were serving on
Municipal and Legislative Councils and that I had fully supported their actions, both privately and
publicly.’’ 2 Tilak’s letter was read in the Subjects Committee and Mrs. licsant’s amendment was
referred to a Committee to report in regard to the said amendment, to the next Congress.

The compromise was thus delayed for another year. The fact of the matter was that Pherozeshah
Mehta regarded all talk of a compromise with the extremists as mischievous. This was why he called
the next Congress to be held at Bombay, where he could control all its proceedings. He made a

115
choice of the president also and invited Sir Satyendra Prasad Sinha to preside. But a few weeks
before the Bombay session, Pherozeshah died (5th November, 1915). Gokhale had also passed away
on Feb. 19, 1915. Now it was easy to make the necessary changes in the Constitution in the Congress
of 1915, and the Tilakites walked into the Congress of 1916 at Lucknow.

Congress—League Pact: Apart from the Liberal initiative in comprehending the Extremists within the
Congress, another very significant attempt was made now to come to

Letter to Bhupendranath quoted by Mody in his biography of Pherozeshah Mehta, Vol. II, p. 655.

2 Bal Gangadhar Tilak: His Writings and Speeches, p. 101.

some understanding with the Muslim League over the franchise question. The Morley-Minto
Reforms had established separate electorates which reinforced distintegrating tendencies. At the
Congress of Allahabad in 1910, in response to the wishes of a great many leaders of the Congress,
Mr. Jinnah had agreed to move the following resolution:

“This Congress strongly deprecates the extension or application of the principle of separate
communal electorates to Municipalities, District Boards or other Local Bodies.”

It was seconded by Mazharul Hague and supported by Hasan Imam. Under the advice of Sir William
Wedderburn and H. H. the Aga Khan, the representatives of the two com-munities met to bring
about a rapproachment between them-selves. The annulment of the Partition in 1911 came as a
great shock to the Muslims and shook their faith in the words and actions of the Government. This
disposed the younger section of the Muslim Community to think of the futility of remaining aloof
from the Congress.

Moreover, the “trouble in the Balkans, a life and death struggle between the leading Islamic power
and four minor kingdoms of Eastern Europe has ‘considerably excited the already’ exasperated
followers of the Arabian Prophet.” The crushing of the young Turk movement started to liberalise
the Ottoman Empire by the Sultan with the help of England further irritated the Indian Muslims.
Such events helped to swell the rising tide of nationalism among the Muslims of India.2 We can also
trace in the change the influence of staunch nationalists like Dr. Ansari, Abul Kalam Azad and Hakim
Ajmal Khan. Nationalist papers of the Muslims like Azad’s ‘Al Hilal’ and Mohammad Ali’s ‘Corn

The Indian Review, October, 1912, p. 833.

2 Report of the Sedition Committee (1918), pp. 173-179.

rade’ were also reinforcing the nationalist sympathies of the Muslims.’

These influences made a profound change in the atti-tude of the Muslim League. In a meeting of the
Council of the All India Muslim League held at Lucknow on Dec. 31, 1912, the League amended its
object to be the “attainment of a system of Self-Government through constitutional

MUDS by coopet ating with other communities.”2

This change way welcomed by the Liberals who had pledged themselves to Hindu-Muslim unity.
They had already made several efforts in this direction. At the 28th session of the Indian National

116
Congress held at Karachi in 1913, a resolution was passed to show its appreciation of the adoption
by the All India Muslim League of the ideal of self-government within the British Empire and to
welcome the hope expressed by the League that the leaders of the different communities would
make every endeavour to find a modus operandi for joint and concerted action.”

In Dec., 1915 Jinnah, President of the All India Muslim League, decided to hold the League session in
Bombay where the Congress was to be held. The Government did not want this to happen, because
it apprehended the League to be swamped by the Congress. It set up an opposition to the proposal
and through it disturbed the meetings of the League. Consequently some of the meetings of the
League had to be held behind closed doors at the -raj Mahal hotel. At this session a resolution was
adopted to appoint a committee to formulate a scheme of reforms and authorise it to confer with
other organisations and on approval of the scheme both by the League and the Congress, it was to
be submitted to the Government. This helped in the materialization of the

-------

Mehta and Patwardhan: The Communal Tangle in India,

p. 32.

2 The Indian Review, January, 1913,

3 Pattablii: The History of the Congress, p. 46.

Lucknow Pact in 1916 in which a joint scheme of reforms was adopted by the two parties.

Demand for Reforms: Before we analyse the Congress-League scheme for post-war Reforms, a word
may be said about two other schemes, viz., Gokhale’s scheme’ of 1914 and the well-known
Memorandum of the Nineteen2 to the Viceroy in October, 1916. At the request of Lord Willing-don,
Gokhale prepared a draft in pencil in his own hand. He sent a copy to Willingdon and the other two
to Pherozeshah and the Agha Khan. Unfortunately both Gokhale and Pherozeshah died soon after.
Gokhale’s scheme, known as Gokhale’s Political Testament, was later on published by the Agha Khan
in England in 1917 and by Srinivasa in India. The second scheme was embodied in a Memorandum to
which among others—Wacha, Srinivasa, Sapru, Rahimtullah, Jinnah and Mazahar-ul-Haque were the
signatories.

(1) According to both these schemes, Provincial Executive Councils were to have 50 p.c. of
Indians. In regard to the Imperial Executive Council the Memorandum insisted on half, whereas
Gokhale urged only one-third of Indians.

(2) Both schemes demanded a substantial majority of elected representatives in the Provincial
Le-gislative Councils. Gokhale specified it to be four-fifth. There was agreement on the strength of
these Councils also.

(3) Both demanded Provincial autonomy with full control over the finances and the abolition of
the Council of the Secretary of State.

(4) Both demanded extension of local self-government.

117
(5) Both acquiesced in Governor’s and Governor-General’s right of veto. Gokhale had no objec-
tion to an official majority being maintained in

IGokhale’s Speeches, p. 1025.

2 Ram Chandra Rao: Indian Polity, Padma VI, p. cxix—cxxvii. F. 25

the Central Legislative Assembly so as to give a sense of security to the authorities and to induce
them to grant Provincial Autonomy.

(6) Both suggested drastic reduction in the powers of the Secretary of State.

(7) Neither wanted separation from the British Empire.

This brings us to the Joint Congress-League Scheme.’ It was a document of paramount importance. It
embodied the whole Liberal programme to which the League’s ascquies-cence was obtained in
return for one major concession, namely, separate electorates now accepted by the Congress for the
first time. Rain Chandra Rao, a prominent Liberal, has shown “that the proposals....in the scheme are
based on existing foundations and constitute the next natural step in the evolution of Indian
Polity”.2

If we compare this joint scheme with the two schemes discussed before it, we find that most of the
suggestions and even the phrasing of several proposals had been borrowed from the previous
documents in the joint Scheme. A few minor changes may, however, be pointed out:—

(1) It was more elaborate and exhaustive than the preceding documents.

(2) It provided for special electorates for the Muslims.

(3) Provincial bills could be vetoed by the Governor-General or the Crown and not by the
Governors.

(4) It wanted greater control of the legislature over the Executive even in the Central
Government. Unlike Gokhale and the Memorandum of the

Baneriee: Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. I1, pp. 289

2 M. Ramchandra Rao: Indian Polity, the Modern Printing Works, Madras, 1917 (Preface III)—The
book is an exhaustive treat-ment of the Congress-League Pact, covering over 850 pages with seven
Appendices.

Nineteen it wanted four-fifth of the members to be elected in the Central Legislature and greater
jurisdiction and wider powers for it.

(5) It wanted that the salary of the Secretary of State

should be placed on the British estimates.

With all these changes even this document did not demand separation from Britain, or even self-
government of the Dominion pattern. At best, it made a bid for responsible Government, fuller

118
Provincial Autonomy with lesser restrictions and more effective control over the Government of
India and greater abridgement in the powers of the Secre tary of State over Indian administration.

The Lucknow Session of the Congress: The Congress Session of 1916 marked the greatest victory of
the Liberals. It represented the nation as a whole—Extremists and Muslims —except for a handful of
terrorists. The joint scheme also emphasized the Liberal line of progress in the evolution of Indian
polity. All the signs of the times promised a further advance in the political fortunes of India. The
practical expression of loyalty to Britain during the War had created a moral impression on Britain.
The demand for responsible government did not now appear as the hobby of a few agitators, but a
national cry supported by all sections of the people under the leadership of the Liberal Congress. The
influence of Mrs. Besant and her slogan of ‘Home Rule’ had breathed a new life into the national
movement. Tilak’s activities, after his release, had contributed not a little to the strength of the
demand for Reforms. The phenomenal manifestation of Indian loyalty at the War strengthened the
hands of right-thinking British statesmen. The Liberal Congress had actually produced the.outline of
a scheme of Reforms in the government of the country also., In July 1916, Montagu, who was then
out of office speaking on the Mesopotamian debate in the House of Commons had attacked the
Government of India as “too wooden, too iron, too inelastic, too antidiluvian” for modern purposes,’
and warned his people to remodel the machine, if they did not want to lose the Indian Empire.
Montagu, who had a few weeks ago so trenchantly denounced the British administration, became
the Secretary of State for India after Chamberlain’s resignation over the Mesopotamian muddle. The
assumption of the Viceroyalty in April 1916 by Lord Chelmsford, who had already begun to press
upon the Home authorities the desirability of announcing a new policy, further facilitated matters.

All these factors made it imperative that a new formulation of British policy towards India should be
made so as to ease the political situation. The result was, as mentioned earlier, the simultaneous
declaration of August 20, 1917 by Chelmsford at Simla and Montagu in the House of Commons that
“The policy of His Majesty’s Government....is that of the increasing association of Indians in every
branch of administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to
progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire”.2

Montagu’s Visit to India: Montagu came to India to have ‘intormal discussions’. Ile declared that,
“My visit to India means that we are going to do something, and some-thing big. I cannot go home
and produce a little thing or nothing; it must be epoch-making. or it is a failure; it must be the key-
stone of the future history of India”.’ He met with and without the Viceroy, deputations representing
men of all shades of political opinion. He received Memoranda from various organisations and
visited almost all important centres and Indian states and interviewed important members of the
bureaucracy and non-officials. The results of his

I Quoted in Cambridge History, Vol. VI, p. 221.

Quoted Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. I, p. .17,1.

8 An Indian Diary by Edwin S. Montagu, p. 8.

enquiry were embodied in the Montagu—Chelmsford Report published in July 1918. Then the
Secretary of State ap-pointed two committees known as the Southborough Committees to
recommend division of subjects between reserved and transferred sections and frame the franchise

119
for the Central and Provincial legislatures. These three reports were further examined by the
Government of India and the results appeared in the form of First, Fourth and Fifth Despatches on
Indian Constitutional Reforms. The Crew Committee considered changes in the system of Home
Administration of Indian affairs. Then, finally the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of
Parliament under the Earl of Selborne re-examined the whole thing and the result came out in the
final shape of the Govermnent of India Act of 1919.

It is not easy to assess the contribution of the Liberals in the enactment of these Reforms. But the
annual reiteration by the Liberal Congress of the demand for an extension of opportunities for self-
government, their constant anxiety to rope in all sections of political workers except the terrorists or
the irreconcilables to press for this demand, and their submission of actual blue-prints for the
ultimate changes were undoubtedly powerful factors in the formulation of the new policy
announced on August 20, 1917 and in the shaping of the provisions of the Government of India Act
1919. They served on various committees appointed in connection with it and tendered evidence
before them. Tej Bahadur Sapru and C. H. Setalvad served on the ‘Committee on Division of
Functions’’ and S. N. Banerjea and V. S. Srinivasan on the Franchise Committee.2 Sir C. Sankaran Nair
submitted a minute of dissents on March 5, 1919 on Go

‘Indian Constitutional Reforms: Reports of various committees (Calcutta, 1928), pp. 117-180.

2 P. Mukherji—The Indian Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 188-219. Ibid., pp. 151--187.

vernment of India’s First Despatch’ on Indian Constitutional Reforms. Lord Sinha as the Under-
Secretary of State for India also contributed his mite to the shaping of this Act. All these things
helped materially to determine the details of this great measure. So while many other political
factors contributed to bring about this change, the Liberals could legitimately take satisfaction in it
as a fruition of their work of the last two decades.

The Birth of the Liberal Party: The rapproachment of the Moderates and the Extremists did not,
however, prove lasting. Tilak was a contrast to Ranade and Gokhale. Tilak, who had routed the
Ranade Party from the Sarvjanik Sabha of Poona in 1896, who had fought him and his pupil Gokhale
on many a social and political question and who had staged the Surat Imbroglio in 1907, was
temperamentally antithetical to the Moderates. The veteran statesman, Pherozcshah Mehta, never
favoured, despite the wishes of better-disposed colleagues, any fusion between the Extremists and
the Moderates.

The Montford Report proved to be the apple of discord between the two groups. The Moderates
accepted the proposed reforms but demanded some alterations. The Extremists totally refused to
accept them. The Extremists left no doubt in Montagu’s mind as to what they stood for. On the 4th
July, 1918, before the report had seen the light of day, Dr. Subramania Iyer wired through the
Associated Press: “If the scheme does not give final goal of full respon-sible government and indicate
steps towards its realisation, it should not be accepted”.2 On the day the report was published Mrs.
Besant, President of the Congress, said in ‘New India’: “The scheme is unworthy to be offered by
England or to be accepted by India. It is petty where it

IP. Mukherji—The Indian Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 34-143.

120
2Quoted in the Statement signed by Bose, M. V. joshi and N. A. Dravid or October 22, 1918 at
Nagpur—published in ‘The Leader’, November 2, 1918.

should have been striking. There is about it no farseeing statesmanship, no constructive genius, no
vision for India of even future evolution into freedom”.1 On the same day 15 leaders of the Congress
Party in Madras issued a manifesto in which they said, “The scheme is so radically wrong alike in
principle and in detail that in our opinion it would be impossible to modify or improve it It cannot
consequently form the basis of discussion or compromise.... unless the present scheme is altogether
abandoned ....and a new one substituted”.2 Tilak, on the next day, declared the scheme ‘as being
extremely disappointing’ and ‘entirely unacceptable’. Tilak’s paper, ‘Kesari’, remarked about the
scheme: “It has dawned, but where is the Sun?”2 The Amrit Bazar Patrika called the scheme ‘a
horse’s egg’—a Bengalce equivalent of ‘mare’s nest’.’ A small brochure was published under the
authority of the Bengal Provincial Conference Committee. The authors, representing the views of the
Extremist Party in Bengal, said that they would be satisfied with nothing less than (a) ‘complete
responsible government in the provinces to be established automatically within five years” and (b)
complete responsible government at the Centre (except army, navy, foreign relations) after 10
years’.6

The Liberal Reaction: The Elders felt amazed at these views.? It was proposed to hold a special
Congress to determine the line of action. The proposed session met from

12 8 4 Quoted in the Statement signed by Bose, M. V. joshi and N. A. Dravid, on October 22, 1918 at
Nagpur—published in ‘The Leader’, November 2, 1918.

A pamphlet published by the Bengal Provincial Conference Committee, (Calcutta, 1918), p. 58.

Ibid., I). 55.

7 For Comments on the M. C. Reforms by the Liberals see “India’s Goal” published by G. A. Natesan
& Co., Madras (Date not given).

August 29 to September 1, 1918 under the presidentship of Syed Plasan Imam in Bombay to
deliberate upon the M. C. Report. The Liberals absented themselves from the session of the
Congress, issued two manifestoes, one before and the other after the special session. The first
manifesto explained the unwisdom of joining and the other the wisdom of not joining the session.
These two manifestoes fully state the stand taken by the Liberals in this crisis. The special session of
the Congress at Bombay represented the Extremists’ view-point only.

The first manifesto’ pointed out that they could not approve of the condemnation of the Montford
report as done by Mrs. Besant and the Bengal and Madras conferences, and appreciated the good
faith of the official proposals which marked ‘a substantial advance upon existing conditions. The
criticism of the Reform proposals by various individuals and organisations betrayed an outlook which
was so different from the Liberal viewpoint that no common understanding could be possible.
Further being a minority in the Congress the Liberals could not expect to get a hearing’ in the
Subjects Committee and their defeat in the Congress would compromise the Liberal cause both in
India and in England by creating the impression that the Reforms had no friends in India at all.

121
“It is these considerations that have led us to decide that our party should abstain from the special
session of the Congress and hold a separate gathering of our own.” They concluded, “It is after a
most anxious deliberation that we have come to this conclusion. It gives us no pleasure. To some of
us it is a violent wrench to stay away even from one sitting of the great national Assembly”.

The Leader, November 2, 1918.

“But the cause for which we have striven for so many years is greater than the means by which we
have striven and we would be betraying the real interests of the country if we were swayed on this
occasion by mere habit, a sense of loyalty to old associates or fear of giving offence to large section
of our fellow countrymen.”

In view of the fact that the Liberals were in a minority, they could not have converted the opponents
to their view; and if the resolution regarding the rejection of scheme had been carried in spite of
their presence, they should have been morally bound to abide by it. It should have been against
their creed. Moreover, the coming reforms had been much nearer to their demands. Further, they
had no inclination to repeat the history of Surat. So, in order to keep their creed intact and work the
constitution and not to fall from grace, abstention from the session was the only politic remedy.

At the special session of the Congress at Bombay V. G. Patel, as chairman of the Reception
Committee, regretted the decision of the Liberal Leaders and fellow Congressmen and observed, “I
shall not have the impertinence to suggest that the proposed Conference of a few Liberals. . . will be
another cave of Adullam, but I shall repeatedly venture to ask whether any Cbnference of Liberals or
Illiberals can serve as a counterpoise to the Indian National Congress and whether any assembly
claiming to hold all the wisdom in the country can be the fulcrum of the magnitude of the
Congress”).

At the request of M. M. Malaviya a joint Conference of the All India Congress Committee, the
Council of the Muslim League and some Liberal Leaders was convened on August 28 to effect a
compromise between the two parties, but the Liberals did not turn up.

I The Leader, November 30, 1918. F. 26

The special Congress in its 5th resolution on the reform proposals put on record that ‘while it
recognises that some of the proposals constitute an advance on the present conditions, it is of
opinion that the proposals as a whole are disappointing and unsatisfactory’.’

The manifesto2 of the Liberals signed by Bose, M. V. joshi and N. A. Dravid on October 22, 1918 at
Nagpur by way of justification of their abstention from the Special Congress declared that the Liberal
Party was prepared to accept the scheme as a real advance towards responsible government even
without any modification. It complained that an apparently organised campaign of vilification
against sonic leaders of the Liberal Party was started to discredit them and under such
circumstances any Round Table Conference to arrive at a fair compromise was made impossible.
Nevertheless the Bengal leaders realising the gravity of the situation did make an attempt by asking
the date of the special session to be postponed for a few days to permit mutual exchange of views.
But the proposal was rejected with contumely. It pointed out that the resolutions passed at the
Special Congress referred to above, demanding res-ponsible government within a certain period

122
were opposed to the spirit of the August Declaration and they felt that .... the rejection of the
scheme “would probably mean the long postponement of all attempts at reforms”.

Were the Liberals taken in by the Scheme?: Tendulkar, the biographer of Mahatma Gandhi, says that
the Liberals were taken in by the schemes and that according to Mr. Montagu, “there was a proposal
in favour of a new organisation of Indians, assisted everyway by the Government, for propaganda on
behalf of our proposals and to send

1 Pattabhi: The History of the Congress, p. 154; Mahatma, Vol. I, p. 288.

2 The Leader, November 2, 1918.

3 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. I, p. 286.

a delegation to England to assist us”.1 There are two points in this statement that deserve notice:
the first is a commentary on Liberal statesmanship and the other a slur on their patriotism.
Tendulkar’s statement seems to be unfair to the Liberals. C. Y. Chintamani declared sometime later
(1920) that We have a straight policy. We are neither apologists nor enemies of the British
Government. Our supreme concern is the well-being and advancement of our motherland and we
approach every problem from this single point of view All who judge our acts and utterances by any
other standard must necessarily be disappointed time and again”.2 Sir Tej, as the president of N. L. F.
in 1923, said, “We were prepared to work and I have no doubt we shall continue to work with those
in power only on one condition, that is, that we reserve to ourselves in the fullest possible measure
the liberty of taking a line of our own, when a course proposed to be taken by Government on a
particular occasion does not commend itself to our judgment or conscience”.8

The Foundation of the National Liberal Federation: So the Liberals held an All-India Conference of
their Party at Bombay on 1st and 2nd November, 1918. Its creed, as pointed out by the leaders of
the Party, is embodied in the following sentences:—

“There is no short-cut to Constitutional development in politics.”4 “Not only do not expect too
much, but do not expect all at once.”‘ We, the Liberal Party, are the friends of Evolution and the
enemies of Revo

Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. I, p. 286.

2 Report of the Proceedings of the III Session of the National Liberal Federation of India, Madras, p.
22.

Report of the Proceedings of the VI Session of the National Liberal Federation of India, Poona, p. 19.

4 Report of Proceedings of the All-India Conference of Moderate Party, 1918, p. 21.

5 Ibid., p. 22.

lution.”1 “Co-operate when we can; criticise when we must.”2 “The All or Nothing” creed did not
appeal to them. They stood for prudence, moderation and self-restraint.

In their view the Conference had become an urgent national necessity. They regarded the Reform
proposals as greater than the Acts of 1853, 1858, 1909 as promising the boon of provincial

123
autonomy. They marked the termination of the old and the inauguration of a new regime. They
defined for the first time the objective of British Rule in India as self-government within the Empire.
They believed that after the heat of the present controversies “a grateful posterity would recognise
Lord Chelmsford and Montagu as among the truest benefactors of the Indian people.”3

In their opinion, the Reform proposals were in con-formity with the principles laid down by the great
Congressmen of the past and in accepting them they were not deviating from the Congress creed. All
the ex-presidents declared that:—

(i) a beginning had to be made,

(ii) our progress must be gradual, and

(iii) we must pass through a period of laborious apprenticeship before the final goal was
reached.

Banerjea was sanguine that, “If Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, W. C. Bonnerjee, Mehta,
William Wedderburn and other illustrious men who were the makers of the Congress were alive,
they would have welcomed the Reform scheme with alacrity”.4

Chintamani declared, “We are here with a senior ex-president as chairman of the Reception
Committee, when the proposition now before you has been moved by another

Report of Procedings of the All India Conference of Moderate Party, 1918, p. 30.

2 ibid., p. 30.

4 Presidential Address, Moderate Party Conference, p. 35.

ex-president and supported by a third ex-president. That proposition is that the seniormost of all ex-
presidents and the one living ex-president who presided twice over the Congress should be the
President of this Conference.”‘

They thought that the Congress-League scheme was a transitory arrangement made before the
announcement of 20th August, 1917. It could not deal with the new situation. “Plainest
considerations of patriotism and expediency demand that we should not in the exuberance of our
zeal or in the wantonness of our indiscretion allow this chance to slip by.”2

At the suggestion of Sivaswami Aiyer at the second

session of the All India Moderate Conference held in Cal

cutta in 1919, the name ‘National Liberals’ was substituted for ‘Moderates’ and their organisation
came to be known as the National Liberal Federation.3 At this session also ‘responsibility and sober
judgment’ were declared to be the guiding factors of the Party and “the good of the country as its
motive”.4

124
Review: The foregoing study of the genesis of the Montford Reforms shows that many factors were
responsible for the changes made in 1919 in the goal of British policy in the Government of India and
the machinery adopted to achieve it. Dadabhai Naoroji had declared at the Calcutta Congress (1906)
that India claimed `Swaraf as her birth-right and the Liberals who controlled the Congress down to
1919, had worked thereafter for the extension of the sphere of self-government in the local and the
provincial spheres and not merely for reforms in the administrative machinery.

1 Report of Proceedings of A. I. Conference of the Moderate Party, p. 27.

2 Ibid., p. 36.

8 Sivaswami Ayer—Presidential Address. Report of A. I. Conference of the Moderate Party at

Calcutta, 1919 (11th Resolution, para. 2), op. cit.

4 Chintamani, in the speech while proposing a vote of thanks to the President at the above
Conference,

The great awakening of public opinion in the country over the Partition of Bengal and the connected
Swadeshi and Boy-cott agitations, the rise of ‘extremism’ both of the political and the revolutionary
type, the quickening of political awareness among the Muslims of India brought about during the
Great War which showed them that their religious and communal interests were affected by
Imperial policy particularly in regard to British dealings with Turkey, and India’s own loyal and
generous response to the War needs of Britain—can be said to have contributed in varying measures
to the change of British policy in 1917-19.

The element of continuity in this change was, however, provided by the Indian Liberals and their
emergence as a separate parliamentary party in 1919. The rejection of the Government. of India Act
of 1919 by the Congress, now do-minated by ‘Home Rulers’ and Extremists, made it both inevitable
and imperative that the Liberals with their tra-ditions of moderation and ‘gradualness’ in change,
should work the new reforms which they had been advocating for over a decade. We shall study the
political conditions prevailing in India in 1919 and immediately thereafter in some detail in Chapter
VII, but it may be pointed out here that if the Indian Liberals had also rejected the Reforms of 1919
and refused to work them for what they were worth, the political chaos of the next decade would
have been worse than it was.

It will, therefore, not be an exaggeration to say that the Reforms of 1919 were a belated fulfilment
of the Liberal demands from 1906 onwards and that they laid a fresh ‘national’ duty on the Liberals
to the performance of which they now rose with rare patriotism and statesmanship.

125
CHAPTER VII: THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK
Like the rest of the world, India may also be said to have entered upon a new era in her long history
at the end of World War I. The Government of India Act (1919) was only one of the elements of
newness in this New India. To many Indians, both inside the Congress and out of it, that Act merely
conferred a limited and ‘moth-eaten’ measure of freedom upon her, but circumscribed as it was, it
did give her some freedom to shape her national life in her own way and it did mark a compromise
with that bureaucratic dicta-torship which had governed her for over 150 years now. At least, so it
appeared to the sober and practical-minded Liberal statesmen who had hitherto guided the work of
the Indian National Congress. Moreover, it was accompanied with such other concessions as
freedom to deal independently with other British Dominions in matters of domestic concern, and to
determine her fiscal policy freely when her executive and legislature were of the same mind. The
condition imposed on her further political progress, namely, that of a decennial Parliamentary
inquisition into her political capacity, was galling and derogatory, but not altogether intolerable if
the wisdom of “liberty advancing from precedent to precedent” were remembered.

These gains, however, did not look like any very tre-mendous change to a majority of political-
minded Indians at the time. For, India had changed at a fast pace during the War years. There was a
new sense of national self-respect and self-confidence abroad in the land. Two lakhs of Indians had
fought for the Empire in France and other theatres of the Great War, and another million Indians
had joined the combatant and non-combatant ranks of the army for the duration. Those in Europe
had fought shoulder to shoulder with British, French and Dominions soldiers, and their gallantry in
the field had received unstinted praise and acknowledgment from all. India had, in the meanwhile,
managed with barely 18,000 British soldiers, and the barest minimum of British civilians without
succumbing to any anarchy or disorder. She had contributed between £20 g: 30 millions annually to
the expenses of the War, and made a free gift of £100 millions to Britain besides large contributions
to the Red Cross and War Loans. The War had, in the Indian view, demonstrated India’s ripeness for
self-government. “If the British ever abdicated their position in India, it was during these war years,”
and that abdication was voluntary.

Unfortunately, the war years brought rapid disillusion-merit. Tactless recruiting methods, official
pressure on the propertied classes for contributions to the various War funds, rising prices and
increasing privations, war-time restrictions, and the obvious breakdown of the railways and the
administrative machinery created widespread dissatisfaction among all classes of Indians. The
announcement of August 20, 1917 and the obvious sincerity of Mr. Montagu put heart into the
politically-minded, but the pettifogging that charac-terised the implementation of that policy again
disillusioned them, and the Act of 1919, as it finally emerged from Parliament, filled them with a
sense of acute frustration.

Other trends of the time added still further to this discontent. Mr. Lloyd George’s famous speech
justifying the retention of “the steel-frame—and a determined, if unavowed, effort to return to pre-
war conditions “2 on the part of the Government seemed to be visible. There was no diminution of
official and racial arrogance in British officers

Thompson & Garratt: Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India, p. 600.

Ibid., p. 600.

126
after the Armistice; The Rowlatt Report of 1918, published soon after the ,Montford Report,
recommended that Government should arm itself with power to try political cases summarily, and to
intern political suspects without trial. The nationalists knew at once that the blow was aimed against
them. The proposals were at once embodied in two bills and rapidly passed. Even the unreformed
legislature took them as a challenge like the Partition of Bengal, and accordingly prepared to meet it.

The deterioration of economic conditions in general, the influenza epidemic of 1918 and the
appalling labour conditions roped in vast masses of men in this prevailing discontent. British policy
towards Turkey embittered the Muslims. All this discontent followed a disillusionment regarding
British invincibility at arms. The surrender at Kut-elAmara, the Irish rebellion, and even the long duel
with the Germans in the Flemish trenches had not exactly served to exalt India’s sense of British
might. All these facts have to be remembered if we are adequately to appreciate the political
situation in India in 1919, the secession of the Liberals from the Congress which they had nursed for
two generations with their life-blood, and the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi as the chief architect
of the national movement thereafter. These same facts also conditioned the political activity of the
Liberals after 1920, specially as provincial ministers under Dyarchy. Keralputra has stated that even
the left-wing nationalists had decided in May, 1919 under Tilak’s guidance that “every opportunity
provided by the new Reforms should be utilised to the fullest extent. Mr. Tilak himself agreed to
stand for a constituency.’”1 The ‘ Rowlatt Acts, however, deeply affected the situation, and made
the Liberal’s task to win the country over to a fair trial of the Reforms more than ever difficult. V. G.
Patel

1 ‘The Working of Dyarchy in India’ by Keral Putra (1928), pp. 28.29.

vainly argued that the times called for the introduction of ameliorative measures by the Government
instead of such repressive acts.’ Surendranath warned the Government of the serious step it (the
Bill) was about to take and of the intense agitation which it was bound to provoke.2 But all these
protests were of no avail, and the Rowlatt Bills duly became law of the land.

This monstrous affront to Indian public opinion and national aspirations brought Mahatma Gandhi
into the political field and opened “a new chapter in India’s struggle for independence.”3 Gandhiji
proposed that the country should offer ‘Satyagrah’ against the acts, organised a Satyagrah Sabha at
Bombay for the purpose, and drafted a pledge affirming a refusal to obey these laws. Despite the
warning of Dinshaw Wacha, Surendra Nath Banerjea and Srinivas Sastri that the Satyagrah
movement was against the best interests of the country at that stage, Gandhiji issued a manifesto
inaugurating the Civil Disobedience movement and fixing March 30 for a hartal as a protest against
the Rowlatt Bills. Later, the (late was changed to April 6. The subsequent events—the firing at Delhi,
the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy at Amritsar, etc.—are well-known, and need not be reiterated here.

The Hunter Committee: Government set up the Hunter Committee in Oct. 1919 to enquire into the
late distur-bances and suggest appropriate action. Two well-known Liberals (Jagat Narain and
Setal•ad) and Sultan Ahmad were the only Indians on that body. The European and Indian members
of the Committee failed to agree and submitted separate reports. Government ultimately
condemned the acts of O’Dyer and cashiered him, but the accusation of partisanship levelled against
the Indian members of the Corn

1 ‘India in 1919’, p. 28-29.

127
2 Surendra Nath: A Nation in Making p. 300.

3 A History of Modern India by Ishwari Prasad & Subedar (1961), p. 398.

mittee in the House of Lords, and the general reaction of Anglo-India to these events widened the
racial gulf between Indians and the Government still further, and events began to move more
quickly. On Aug. 1, 1920, Gandhiji informed the Viceroy of his intention to start a ‘non-cooperation’
movement’; the Special Congress held at Calcutta (Sept. 4-9, 1920) under the presidency of L. Lajpat
Rai adopted a programme of “progressive non-violent non-cooperation”2 N’, ith the Government
until the Punjab and Khila fat wrongs were redressed and Swaraj was won!

Non-Cooperation and the Liberals: Meanwhile, elec-tions to the Reformed Councils were held in
Nov. 1920. About 80% of the voters did not turn up to cast their votes. There was also a paucity of
suitable candidates seeking election due to the activities of the non-co-operators. To ridicule the
elections, the non-cooperators put up an illiterate barber as a candidate and got him elected, and
set up at Delhi a sweetmeat-seller who stated in his manifesto that if he were elected he would sell
his sweets rolled up in Rowlatt Acts! Against such a mighty flood of opposition also, the Liberals
remained steady in their decision to give the Re-forms a fair trial.

It was not any lack of patriotism, or callousness towards all that was happening in the country that
prevented them

1 The word ‘non-cooperation’ was first used by Gandhiji at the Khilafat Conference on Nov. 23, 1919,
in English.

2 The non-cooperation programme consisted of the following terms: (i) Surrender of titles, honorary
office and the nominated seats in local bodies; (ii) refusal to attend Government levees, durbars and
other official and semi-official functions, (iii) gradual withdrawal of children from schools and
colleges owned or aided by Government and the establishment of national schools; (iv) gradual
boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants and the establishment of private arbitration courts;
(v) refusal on the part of the military, clerical and labouring classes to offer themselves as recruits for
services in Mesopotamia; (vi) withdrawal of candidates of their candidature from the reformed
councils and the refusal on the part of the voters to vote for any candidate; and (vii) boycott of
foreign goods.

from joining the non-co-operators. Setalvad and Jagat Narayan in the minority report of the Hunter
Committee, P. S. Sivaswami lyer as the President of the All India Moderate Conference in 1919,
Chintamani in the columns of the ‘Leader’ and Sir Tej on the floor of Imperial Legislative Assembly
condemned the atrocities of General O’Dyer in the most scathing terms. Sir Tej said on a resolution
regarding Martial Law in the Punjab in 1919, “If I may be permitted just a little bit of freedom to
refer to my own sentiments as a non-official, I am willing to confess that the iron had entered into
my soul also.” Was it the lust of office that attracted them? Instead of seeking office, office itself
sought them? Office was held purely as a trust, as a means that gave them opportunities of serving
their country.2 The Liberals looked upon the Punjab tragedy as the darkest spot in the British
administration of India and deplored the grievous blunder of the British Cabinet in ignoring the
strength of public opinion on the Khilafat question.”

128
Yet they were unable to bring themselves to believe that non-cooperation was the best means of
expressing their indignation and of redressing the wrongs that had been in-flicted.’ It was, in their
opinion, defective not only in respect of the ideal which it sought to inculcate but in its modus
operandi also. Its ideal was shifting and dubious. First of all non-cooperation was put forward as a
protest against the Punjab tragedy and the Khilafat wrongs; it had since deve-loped into a political
method to obtain Swaraj in 12 months! Sir N. B. Dadabhoy said that the word Swaraj admitted of a
variety of interpretations. It became a mirror of many

1 Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, Vol. I, 1921.

2 Pressidential Address by Sir Tej, Report—N.L.F. of India, 1923, p. 91.

3 Dewan Bahadur Goyim’ Raghava Iyer: Report N.L.F. of India, 1920, p. 6.

4 Ibid. p. 6.

facets. It varied from absolute independence to almost Dominion Self-Rule. The Swaraj which the
bulk of non-cooperators sought was any thing but Parliamentary Swaraj. Gandhiji made that plain in
his book on ‘Indian Home Rule’, published in 1908. C. R. Das said in the Dehradun Con-ference, “I
want Swaraj for the masses, not for the classes, I don’t care for the bourgeoisie.”

As a method also non-cooperation appeared to be fraught with difficulties, disadvantages and

dangers. In brief, it was thought to be impracticable, as it was to be practised by practically the
whole of the Indian population composed of all sorts and conditions of men. As such, it. was bound
to provoke and encourage violence. It was injudicious, because it enjoined upon people to boycott
the Councils and thus deprive the people of all chances of influencing the deliberations of the
councils for the good of the country. It was dangerous because it asked the students to leave their
schools and colleges. Students of colleges being citizens of tomorrow would remain unlettered and
uncultured without even the rudiments of knowledge for want of sufficient national institut ions.2 C.
V. Chintamani in his presidential address made out the following points against the non-cooperation
movement. Non-cooperation had a negative creed which was opposed to the nature of things and
therefore no amount of propaganda could bring it success. It undermined respect for law and
authority among the masses who had not developed an intelligent understanding. Noncooperation
promised immediate Swaraj which was an euphem ism for revolution and revolution could not be
accomplished by either constitutional methods or non-cooperation. The only path that was open
was armed revolt. “If they think they can, if they feel, they must, let them go forward

Sir N. B. Dadabhoy’s speech as Chairman of Reception Com-mittee, Report, N.L.F., Nagpur, 1922, pp.
5-6.

2 Welcome Address by Dewan Bahadur Govind Raghava Iyer, Report, N.L.F. of India, at Madras,
1920, pp. 5-7.

and risk it. 1 will deplore their folly but will respect their courage and straight-forwardness.”‘

Besides, the Liberals were desirous of working the reforms to get all the good that could be got out
of them.2 They believed that the working of the constitution was a powerful factor in strengthening
the Indian case for the quicker realisation of full responsible government. More-over, the Liberals

129
thought that in these days of vast world states and national wars, waged with every kind of scientific
machinery, it was better to be a part of a large organisation than to plough a lonely furrow. Finally,
the Liberals refused to have part or lot with those who exhorted the murderer while abhorring the
(Iced and paying lip homage to non-violence.’

Furthermore, to Liberals non-co-operation had some-thing mystical about it. It appeared to Srinivas
Shastri a mysterious proposition that non-co-operation was to be practised by co-operation and that
“in order to practise evolution scientifically we must first effect revolution”. It appeared to hint to be
merely jugglery of words.’ The Liberals felt that it was hypocritical in that its workers had love on
their lips but were preaching the gospel of hatred. At best, they took it to be a quixotic and visionary
scheme and argued that towering personalities like Lala Lajpat Rai,

C. R. Das, Vijaya Raghavachariar, who had long combated non-co-operation, had ultimately fallen
into the current because they thought that it was safer on the whole to stick to the higher ideal,
although unattainable, in preference to having a lower aim, even if it was attainable. The Liberals

Presidential Address by C. Y. Chintamani, Report, N.L.F. of India, Madras, 1920, pp. 22-24.

2 Presidential Address by Moropant Joshi, Report, N.L.F. of India, Calcutta, 1925, p. 46.

3 Presidential Address by Dr. Paranjpye, N.L.F. of India, Luck-now. 1924, p. 13.

4 Presidential Address by Srinivas Sastri, N.L.F. of India, Nagpur, 1922, p. 75.

claimed to be practical politicians and not merely dreamers of ideal constitution.’

Non-Co-operator’s Rebuttal: The non-co-operators naturally argued differently. Their view was that
since the Reforms of 1919 did not even confer responsible self-government upon India to provide
any real basis for fruitful cooperation with the British, and since an armed rebellion against British
authority was not ‘practical politics’, non-cooperation with the Government was the only weapon
left with the people to work for national progress. They stated that it did not mean any hatred of the
English people or even Western civilisation as such, though it did mean rejection of all that had been
imposed by force upon India, a rejection of all injustice and wrong. Apparently, a negative urge, its
positive side lay in the affirmation and active pursuance of all that might contribute to the moral and
material progress of the people.

The Liberal critics of the non-co-operation movement made much of its subversive character but the
Congress leaders justified their actions by the traditional British methods of political protest, such as
refusal of supplies to the Stuart Kings, and refusal on many other occasions of unfair laws. C. R. Dass
even described the Stuart Rebellion as one glorious tale of non-co-operation.2 A recent writer, Sri V.
N. Naik, has criticised non-co-operation and its author more trenchantly than the Liberals who had
to bear its brunt. lie deplores Tilak’s death on August 1, 1920, after which ‘no powerful opposition
was left in the Cpngress to stay

Gandhiji’s hand and to stave off non-co-operation’.2 But

Concluding remarks of the President, Srinivas Sastri, N.L.F. at Nagpur, 1922, pp. 79-80.

2 Presidential Address, 1.N.C., Gaya, 1922; Presidential Addresses, Vol. II, pp. 550-551.

130
2 V. N. Naik: ‘Indian Liberalism’ (Padma Publishers Ltd., Bombay, 1945) p. 65. Naik says, “Under Mr.
Gandhi the Amritsar, Calcutta and Nagpur Sessions of the Congress were characterised by a
decreasing sense of sanity and moderation and an increasing power of what Burke has called
‘dissidence of dissent.”

Tilak was closer to Gandhiji than to the Liberals in respect of his political views. In fact, he had
anticipated Gandhiji and his non-co-operation thirteen years before in one of his speeches at
Calcutta on Jan. 2, 1907.’ He exhorted people to have the power of self-denial and self-abstinence in
such a way as not to assist the foreign government. He asked people not to give assistance to the
Government to collect revenue and keep peace, not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers and
in carrying on the administration of justice, etc. As Prof. D. S. Sharma aptly remarks that power
passed from Tilak to Gandhiji as it once did from Parasurama to Rama.2

Gandhiji in his speech at Ratna Giri in his tour in 1927 said, “1 do not think there has been any
follower of Lokmanya, who has tried to carry out his Mantra more than 1” “I am but the heir of
Lokmanya and if I do not add to the patrimony he has left me, I would not be a worthy son of a
worthy father.” When Shaukat Ali approached him with regard to the Khilafat question, Lokmanya
said to him, “1 shall put my signature to whatever Gandhi signs, for I trust to his better knowledge in
this matter.”a

It is thus obvious that the non-co-operation movement was not a wayward move on the part of
Gandhiji alone, but a sort of inevitable response to new conditions in the country by a section of the
people to whom his ideas and political methods made a special appeal. None the less, the wide
divergence of aims and methods between the Liberal and the Extremist wings of nationalists created
a dualism in the country that seemed at least immediately to threaten the popular cause which both
parties had at heart. The Congress outcry of unpatriotic opportunism against the Liberals was to
weaken the position of Liberal ministers and legislators, and

Tilak’s Writings and Speeches, p. 65.

21). S. Sharma: The Renaissance of Hinduism’, p. 144. 8 Tendulkar: ‘Mahatma’, pp. 346-48.

the Liberal Co-operation in running the Reforms was to drive the Congress into the political
wilderness.

The Liberal Ministries: It is perhaps a misnomer to give the name of ‘ministries’ to the number of
individuals working under the Provincial Governors to assist them in the administration of
transferred subjects under the new regime. They were generally chosen by the Governors on
personal grounds and not on grounds of party. None of them had sought election as a party
candidate.’ In no province did all the ministers belong to the Liberal Party and there was no
obligation on them to work on the basis of the principle of joint responsibility. Some of the most
prominent members of the Liberal Party were, however, returned to the reformed legislatures and
some of these were picked up by the Government to manage the transferred departments. In the U.
P. prominent Liberals like Hirdayanath Kunzru, Gokaran Nath Misra, Anand Swarup, Jagat Narayan
and C. Y. Chintamani were elected to the Legislative Council and of them the last two were called to
become ministers. In the same way, prominent Liberals were invited to take up portfolios of the
transferred departments in other provinces, such as, Surendranath Banerjea and P. C. Mitter in

131
Bengal, R. P. Paranjpye and C. V. Mehta in Bombay, Venkata Reddi in Madras, S. M. Chitnavis and N.
K. Kelkar in the C. P. Setalvad and Cowasji Jehangir were appointed as executive councillors in
Bombay. Some of these who accepted office might not have been Liberals by label, yet “acceptance
of office postulates acceptance of dyarchy”2 which was the main item of the programme of the
Liberal Party and their progressive schemes may also be taken as a Liberal achievement.

1 Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution (1923), p. 143.

2 Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution (1926), p. 87.

Despite all the subsequent handicaps of popular disapproval, bureaucratic suspicion, administrative
inexperience and financial stringency, the new ministers worked hard and devotedly to promote the
various nation-building activities entrusted to their charge. The work of some ministries was of
outstanding merit, and almost everywhere they functioned by private understanding and so far as
the ‘transferred’ wing of the provincial Governments was concerned on the basis of joint
responsibility. We shall briefly review this work in the subsequent pages of this chapter.

Education: Education was the subject which the Liberals held next to their hearts. Naturally when
they stepped into office, they set themselves to translate their ideals into practice with due regard
to the existing conditions. Paranjpye, education minister in Bombay, took up the task of providing
universal compulsory primary education and increased facilities for secondary, higher, technical and
professional education. Special facilities for the depressed class figured prominently in his
programme. He introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council a Bill to provide for com-pulsory
elementary education and to make better provision for the management and control of primary
education.1 This Bill left no option to the municipalities in the matter. Government could call upon
any local body to frame a scheme of compulsory education for children between 6 and 11 years of
age, failing which Government could make the scheme and ask the local body to carry it out. The
penalty for nonattendance was Rs. 2/-. He devised a machinery to see that children actually
attended the schools.

With regard to finances, the Bill provided that in larger municipalities the scale of grant from
Government would be one-half of the expenditure and the grant to rural boards would be two-third.
At the time, the Government contri

1 Bombay Debates, 1922, Vol. VII, September, October and December, pp. 389-391.

bution to municipalties was one-half and in case of the local boards all expenses were met by
Government, but for a small contribution. But the Minister pointed out that this additional burden
would be borne for the expansion of education.’

With regard to management the bill provided a wider educational autonomy to local bodies, subject
to certain powers of supervision and control. It was a case of devolution of power from the
Education Department to local bodies. To provide for efficiency, educational administrative areas
were laid down. As small municipalities might not be able to pay for their new educational schemes,
the Bill provided that the city municipalities would manage their education and district local boards
were to be responsible for the smaller municipalities.2 The scheme was to cost Rs. 3),- crores
annually in addition to what was being spent then on education.

132
As a measure of economy, same buildings and appliances were to be used for two sets of pupils in
one day, with the same teachers for both the shifts working on a small extra allowance for the extra
work. After the scheme started the number of pupils increased by nearly 100 p.c. in municipal areas
at an increased cost of something like 25 per cent. In rural areas he made use of the Panchayats
which had come into existence as a result of recent legislation. The compulsion was to be exercised
through Panchayats.

Special provision was made for the education of the depressed classes, but social difficulties and
abject poverty still kept these classes out of the schools so that even the middle school scholarships
of four or five rupees a month which Government provided for depressed class students were
unavailed of by them. Government also made provision to open a hostel for fifty boys to provide
free lodging

1 Bombay Debates, 1922, Vol. VII, Sep., Oct. and Dec., p. 395,

2 p. 397.

and boarding to them. Thus his Compulsory Primary Education Act can be hailed as a landmark in the
history of primary education in India, following as it did in broad outline Gokhale’s famous Education
Bill of 1911.

In the U.P., Pandit Jagat Narayan was incharge of primary education as Minister for Local Self-
Government and he tried to put the existing primary schools on a sound basis and to expand and to
keep on expanding primary education subsequently. Before he took charge, the district board
teachers were getting a salary of Rs. 10/- to 15/- per month. They had been agitating for an increase
in their salaries. Pandit Jagat Narayan, therefore, drew up a revised scale of pay and issued a
communique suggesting a further increase of pay to all teachers. In regard to expansion of
education, he adopted three lines of advance:—

(i) to carry out, as funds permitted, the scheme of general expansion laid down by Government
some years before.

(ii) to persuade municipal boards to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act, promising
Liberal financial help to enable them to introduce compulsion;

(iii) to expand education amongst the depressed classes, for which he made a provision of Rs.
86,000/-.

He repudiated the charge that the Government did not feel its responsibility towards primary
education by pointing out that in 1919-20 the total expenditure by district boards on education was
about 52 lakhs of rupees of which Government contributed 35 lakhs. In the years’ budget (1920-21)
the Government contribution was raised to 56 lakhs.*

* The following statement of Chintamani will show what was done under Liberal Ministry of
Education in the U.P. :—

Aggregate Expenditure

on Education

133
1920-21 Old Government .. 1,09,93,000

1923-24 Liberal Government .. 1,64,23,000

Chintamani’s statement on the Budget on March 14, 1923, Council Proceedings, U.P., Vol. VIII, 1923,
p. 505.

The example of these two provinces shows that the Liberal ministers endeavoured to tackle the
problem of illiteracy actively and made concrete provisions to realise the dream of universal
compulsory primary education. They embarked upon plans not only for expanding education, but
also for making it more useful by providing better arrangement for the training of teachers,
increasing their emoluments, revising curricula, and devising courses of study involving a suitable
combination of general training and some form of vocational instruction.

The success of these Liberal ministers should not be measured in this field only by what they were
actually able to achieve, for the problem of compulsory elementary education was a stupendous one
and required greater financial resources, than they were able to secure for the purpose. Their
success is to be judged by their intentions and the amount of enthusiasm that they put into their
work.

In the domain of secondary education also, the work of the Liberal ministers was by no means
negligible. An illustration from the U.P. will be enough to testify to the fact. C. Y. Chintamani was
incharge of the Education portfolio in the U.P. In his manifesto to the electors of Jhansi, his
constituency, he said that,

“Secondary education (is) the pivot of the whole system and no well considered expenditure to
provide extended facilities and to raise its standard will fail to react upon the condition and progress
of the people.

Increase in 4 years Rs. 54,30,000, i.e., an annual increase of Rs. 13,57,500.

Increase of Expenditure on University : Secondary

Education : Education

1921-

11,24,0

12,59,000

Thus an annual average increase 2,81,0

3,14,750

i.e., the percentage of increase 16.7% 26.27% The extensive reforms recommended by the
Calcutta University Commission have to be carefully examined in their application to these provinces
and they should be introduced without delay . ...it would be equally unwise to ignore the opinions of
so competent a body of educationists presided over by Sir Michael Sadler and to rush the reforms
without taking count of the cost and enlisting public opinion in support of them.”‘

134
Secondary education and its organisation both were full of serious defects.’ It failed to inculcate in
the edu-cands the ideals and aspirations for the higher life. It did not train students for citizenship.
Cheap institutions were springing up. No regard was shown to efficiency. No attention was paid to
the development of a sound social life. Secondary education did not offer a student a definite stage
at which he could stop to turn to a suitable calling. Perforce he had to take up University courses for
which he had often no aptitude and lesser resources. The report of the Calcutta University
Commission noted these defects and proposed that secondary education should be separated from
University education and made a self-contained unit. Fully alive to these defects, Chintamani moved
the Bill for the establishment of a Separate Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the
U.P. The aim of the proposed educational reform, according to Chintamani, was to increase and
improve the facilities for education, to bring it within the reach of the people and to provide for
training for professional and vocational careers.

While moving reference of the Bill to a Select Com-mittee,” C. Y. Chintamani said in the Council:

Chintamani’s Manifesto: ‘The Leader’, Dec. 31, 1920.

2 For details of the defects of secondary education, see chapter VIII, Vol. I, chapter IX, paras 37-43,
and also chapter XXXI, Vol. IV of the University Commission 1917-1919.

a Report of the Proceedings of the U.P. Legislative Council, April 4, 1921.

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 228

(i) the proposed board would not be an officialised body but will include representatives of
Government as well as of educational institutions.

(ii) The board would not be merely an advisory body but would enjoy full powers in relation to
Inter-mediate and High School education. The board would be an autonomous body.

(iii) The Board would come into existence by an act

of legislature and not an executive decree.

Such a board he hoped would create conditions under which students would be better fitted to
receive University education as well as to embrace various vocations and to pursue them
seccessfully.

Gokaran Nath Misra, another great Liberal of ‘the U. P., pointed out during the debate on this
motion that there was a feeling among the people that the Board consisted of only the nominees of
the Minister for Education and he hoped that some way would be found out to remedy that defect.
He also recommended the inclusion of those interested in girls’ education in the Board.

Pandit Hirdayanath Kunzru, one of the foremost Liberal leaders, suggested that all governmental
institutions whether High School or Intermediate Colleges should be controlled by the Board, that it
should have power to fix salaries of the teachers and of allocating grants to all recog-nised
institutions and should have the control of the inspectorial staff. Regarding its personnel, he said
that it should be such as enjoyed the confidence of all. He suggested that men should be sent to

135
foreign countries to study the system of education there and to infuse that spirit into the Indian
schools and emphasised that secondary education should be brought within the reach of everybody.

On July 26, 1921 Chintamani moved the bill to establish a Board of High School and Interinediate
Education, as amended by the Select Committee and declared that he

would not accept any amendments touching upon fundamental matters. He said that the
Government would leave to the Board perfect freedom of action with regard to matters of purely
educational character, as distinguished from matters of an administrative and financial character. He
expressed his disapproval of interference by the Government and Legislative Council in educational
affairs. He was prepared to have elected representatives of the head-masters and principals of
private institutions if the Council could find a way to achieve this purpose. In respect of the
principals and headmasters of Government institutions he preferred their representation by
nomination.

Eventually, Chintamani was able to incorporate most of the suggestions made in the Council in the
constitution of the proposed Board. He made it a purely non-official body and granted it full
autonomy. He laid down the principle that in purely educational matters neither the council nor the
Government should interfere. Thus he entrusted the controversial issue as to whether the
intermediate course should be reduced by one year and the formation of a revised education code
to this Board. He accepted only one amendment, that of Rai Sita Ram Sahib supported by Pt.
Gokaran Nath Misra and Pandit Hirdayanath Kunzru; namely, that the Board should have the power
of prescribing courses, not only for the High School and Intermediate but also for middle schools.

Thus a great experiment was launched for the improve-ment of Secondary education in the U.P.
after a good deal of discussion. Many educationists apprehended that these innovations might lead
to a deterioration of educational standards. But the sequel showed that the measure was not only
bold but proved fairly successful and has endured up to the present times.

In this sphere the U.P. took the lead. In some other provinces also Intermediate education was
organised as a

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 225

separate unit. The pay and status of teachers were improved and Liberal grants-in-aid were given to
private institutions.

In University education also the lead was taken by the U.P. C. Y. Chintamani tried to reconstitute the
University of Allahabad on the basis of the recommendation of the Calcutta University Commission
and his own experience. On July 28, 1921, he moved that the Allahabad University Bill be referred to
a Select Committee, and made a speech which embodied his ideas about University reform. He
proposed to make the following changes in the Allahabad University which marked a definite
advance on the provisions of the Lucknow University Act passed under the previous regime:

(1) The Allahabad University was to have full power to recognise the degrees of other
Universities on their merits without the assent of the Governor-General.

136
(2) The Allahabad University was to be given full power to make its own selection of professors
without the intervention of any political autho-rity.

(3) In the Lucknow University Act there was a provision that no less than one-fourth of the
professors should be appointed in England. In the present Bill the word ‘Ordinarily’ was substituted
for the phrase ‘no less than’, for he did not agree that it should be binding upon the University to
appoint a minimum number of professors of a particular nationality.

Certain other changes were made by the Select Committee’ which included three prominent Liberal
leaders, viz.,

1 The Leader, Oct. 24, 1921. F. 29

A HISTORY OP THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

Hirdayanath Kunzru, Anand Swarup arid Gokaran Nath Misra:

(1) The University Court was vested with wider powers and the offices of the Vice-Chancellor
and the Treasurer were made elective.

(2) Important changes were recommended regarding the constitution of the University Court as
the supreme governing body of the University.

(3) The Court could remove any body from member-ship under certain conditions. In the
original bill this power was vested in the Chancellor.

In this way the University, which was under the influence

of official and non-official Europeans, was freed from alien

influences. As a consequence it could be made a better nur

sery for patriotic citizens. The new educational policy

represented a closer approach to a national system of educa

tion which could be made instrumental in realising Bryce’s

three aims of education, as quoted by Chintamani himself:

One aim is to fit men to be at least explorers in the field of science and learning. A second is to fit
them to be leaders in the field of action, leaders not only by their initiative and diligence but also by
their power and the habit of turning a full stream of thought and knowledge upon whatever work
they have to do. A third is to give the taste for and the habit of enjoying intellectual pleasures.’”

Chintamani was very keen about technological education and in his budget speech said, “We are
anxious that there should be a technological University at Kanpur made up of the Technological
Institute, the College of Agriculture, the College of Commerce and also the Arts and Science College
that exist there.”3 At his initiative, a large

137
1 Chintamani’s Speech on Nov. 9, 1921; U. P. Council, Vol. IV (24th Oct. to 17th Noy. 1921).

2 U. P. Council, Vol. XIII, 14 March, 1923, p. 512.

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 227

number of technical and vocational schools were also set up in the U.P.

Similarly the University of Bombay made rapid strides during the Vice-Chancellorship of Chiman Lal
Setalvad between 1917-1929. New departments were added and new professors appointed to the
University. On March 26, 1924 a Committee was appointed to examine the whole position of the
University of Bombay and determine a definite course of policy. The Committee had about half a
dozen Liberals on its personnel excluding Chiman Lal Setalvad who was its president. Several
recommendations were made to reconstitute the University and the Bombay Government
introduced the University Bill in the Legislature without referring it to the Senate for its opinion. A
clause (5th) of the Bill invested the Governor-General with visitorial powers whereby he could
interfere with the internal management of the University. It raised a storm of protests, but the
clause was retained.

A Bill to provide for the reorganisation of the Madras University (Bill No. 10 of 1922) was passed to
bring the University into closer contact with the affiliated Colleges and to enable it to take a greater
and more active part in reorganising their teaching.

Under the same ministry the Andhra University Bill was introduced on August 21, 1925 to constitute
a University for the Telugu speaking districts of the Presidency. The chief features of the Bill were—
the concerntration of higher education in first grade and honour’s colleges, the provision of courses
of instruction in scientific, technical and technological subjects, the permissive use of vernacular
languages as medium of instruction, and the introduction of a ‘Conscience’ clause.

Other Provincial Governments also tried to reform their Universities on the lines suggested by the
Calcutta University Commission, as modified by local conditions. The

A IIMORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

1 Report on the working of the Reform Constitution, 1923, Vol. J, p. 102.

Universities of the Punjab anti Dacca underwent extensive modifications. A few new Universities—
Delhi (1922) and Nagpur (1923)—were also established.

In this way all aspects and stages of education received due consideration under the Liberal
ministries or individual Liberal leaders in the capacity of Vice-Chancellors or Sena-tors.

Local Self-Government: Another sphere in which the Liberal Ministers rendered outstanding service
to the country was Local Self-Government. Surendranath Banerjea had been put in charge of Local
Self-Government in Bengal. It had ever been a favourite subject of Banerjea and throughout his
public career, in the press and on the platform, he had urged for investing the local bodies with

138
greater powers and greater responsibilities. When in power now, he took the first opportunity to
pass two measuers—the Calcutta Municipal Act and the Bengal Municipal Act.

The Calcutta Municipal Act (1923) marks a notable advance in Local Self-Government.’ It invested
the Calcutta Corporation with fuller power within its jurisdiction. Four-fifth of its members were to
be elected. The Mayor’s office was also made elective, franchise was extended, plural voting was
abolished and women were admitted to the electorate. The Act expanded the jurisdiction of the
Corporation by the inclusion of the suburban areas. The Act was a great achievement. The revenues
of the Qorporation amounted to about one-fifth of those of Bengal as a whole. They were put under
the control of the representatives of the people. All these changes fully democratised the
Corporation.

In one respect the success of the Act was marred as it admitted the communal principle in the
making of appointments. Surendranath Banerjea laid the blame for this

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 229

‘ Proceedings of the Legislative Council, U.P., Vol. V—Dec., 1921.

retrograde measure on the Swarajist Party which had agreed to this principle in the Hindu-Muslim
Pact, and proposed to extend it to all municipalities of Bengal.

The Bengal Municipal Bill was introduced in the Legislative Council on August 16, 1923. It had certain
excellent features. Its administrative provisions granted extensive powers to the Municipalities,
subject to the control of the local government. Three-fourths and in some cases four-fifths of the
members of the boards now were to be elected in place of two-thirds under the existing law. The
office of chairman also was made elective and the system of nomination was abolished with some
exceptions. In short, the Bill invested the municipalities with genuine authority and responsibility,
and external control in their internal matters was relaxed to a very considerable extent. The
principle of communal representation was not included in this bill.

In the U.P. also laudable work was done in this department. Jagat Narain introduced on Dec. 3, 1921,
the District Boards Bill which was passed by the Council in November 1922 and came into force on
the 1st February, 1923. It had several special features.’ It made the Boards entirely elective save for
the reservation of two seats to be filled by nomination by the local government, but even these
nominated members were to be non-officials. Thus under this measure district boards became
purely non-official bodies. Sex disqualification was removed and the depressed classes were given
representation for the first time. Out of the two members to be nominated by the Government at
least one was to belong to the depressed classes. Generous representation was given to Muslims.
They constituted only 12% of the population but the proportion of representation granted to them
on the Boards was 25%. It is also remark

able that women were also granted the vote at local elections and this problem which raised bitter
controversies and violent demonstrations in England itself was peacefully solved by the Liberal
ministers in India. .

139
Further, constituencies were made smaller in order to secure adequate representation of every
locality. As regards candidates it was laid down that they must be enrolled as electors in the
constituency. This condition ensured that members were personally acquainted with local
conditions. It was further laid down that no government servant would be elected as chairman of
the District Boards and the Board was given a free hand in the appointment and dismissal of officers
and servants of the boards. Boards were also given larger powers of taxation. On the taxation clause
there was much difference of opinion in the legislature but with a slight modification it was adopted,
and this provision conferred a larger measure of financial independence on the local Boards.

Further, two bills were introduced in the U.P. Legislature to amend the existing Municipalities Act—
one of which regularised the fixing of joint toll limits for Cantonment Boards and Municipalities and
the other which was a non-official bill brought down the municipal electoral qualifications to the
level of those of the Legislative Council.

In Bihar and Orissa also, two important acts regarding local bodies were passed. One of them was
the Village Administration Act which created Unions of several villages, constituted on an elective
basis, and performing certain important duties including the control of village police. The Municipal
Act was amended more or less on the same lines as elsewhere.

In Bombay, Act VI of 1923, consolidated and amended the law relating to local Boards, widened their
franchise and increased their powers ‘of administration and taxation.

In Madras, much useful work was done by Subbarayulu

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 231

Reddiar* (17-12-1920 to 10-7-1921) and A. P. Patro* (1921 to 1926) in the spheres of Education and
Public works, by the Raja of Panagal* in Local Self-Government and by Venkatareddi Nayudu (17-12-
1920 to 18-11-1923) in the Development department. The Madras City Protection Bill was passed in
1921, but came into force in 1922. The Bill provided for the payment of compensation to the tenant
in case of ejectment and for the settlement of fair rent at the instance of the Landlord. A bill was
passed to amend the Madras Port Trust Act which provided for better administration of the Port and
included regulation for the benefit of the staff. The Madras Village Panchayat Act was passed to
enable a Panchayat to exercise the function of a Panchayat Court and credit to its funds all
penalities, fines, fees or cess levied by it. The Madras Irrigation Bill meant to enable the State to
regulate irrigation in the interests of general community (Jan. 1923) had to be dropped on account
of difference between the Governor and the Council.

In the C.P., the most important measure in the Depart-ment of Local Self-Government was the
Central Provinces Municipalities Act of 1922 which extended the franchise, reduced official control,
gave powers of taxation and increased the initiative and so sense of responsibility of the members of
these local bodies.

In short, in the sphere of local Sell-Government tangible resutls were visible in almost all the
provinces under the Liberal ministries in the newly created legislatures. In connection with all such
Bills the Liberal effort showed a tendency towards decentralization, granting powers to local
authorities, to increase the powers of the latter in taxation, to bind Government to make larger
contributions from

140
* Names marked with (*) were not Liberals by label, yet their work was liberal in nature. A. P. Patro
belonged to the Justice Party. “The Organisation of the Non-Brahman (Justice) Party was the South
Indian Liberal Federation.” Report on the Working of the Reformed Constitution, Vol. II, (1926), ‘p.
96.

A.IIISTORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

general revenues to them and to free the local authority from government control in their normal
work.

lndianisation of Services: As a favourite plank of the Liberal programme, Indianisation of the services
claimed the full attention of the Liberal ministers. Surendranath tried to Indianize the Department
under his control. He was able to apply the principle to the Calcutta Corporation and to the Medical
department with considerable difficulty. Asked by the Secretary of State for his views on the
numerical strength of the Cadre of the Indian Medical Service in Bengal, he replied by wire that the
number of reserved posts should not be increased and later on recommended that the
appointments reserved for the Indian Medical Service Cadre in Bengal should be reduced from forty
to twenty-four. He threw open the professoriate of the Calcutta Medical College to the independent
medical profession and appointed several local doctors as honorary physicians of the hospital. He
also gave impetus to the establishment of other medical schools in Bengal.

Prohibition: C. V. Cluntainani introduced in the U.P. excise reforms which reduced the consumption
of alcohol and other intoxicants. His policy in regard to ‘drink’ and ‘drugs’ was to derive the
“maximum revenue from consump• tion’’. No effort was spared to minimise all temptation to
drunkards and regulate both the quality and quantity of the liquor to be consumed. So, high duties
were placed upon the consumption of licit spirits in such a way that its retail prices became
prohibitive. C. V. Mehta in Bombay also took drastic steps to control the drink evil. He initiated a
new policy whereby he imposed indirect checks on the consumption of liquor. During 1922, the
quantity of spirits supplied was considerably reduced. A system of rationing was intro-duced
according to which the liquor shops in Bombay were supplied with lesser quantity than consumed in
previous

years. In Bengal ‘The Excise Amendment Act’, 1922 was

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 233

passed which raised the age-limit of persons to whom intoxi-cating liquors and drugs might be sold.
In several provinces Licensing Boards were set up and they controlled the liquor traffic, licensed
liquor shops and shortened the hours of sale. Excellent work was done by the Annual Social
Conferences of the Liberals in the reduction of the drink evil.

Industries: Industrialisation was another important pursuit of the Liberals. India had cried for half a
century for the revision of the Tariff policy of the British Government and this cry became louder in
the Post-War period. The M.C. Report supported India’s claim to Fiscal autonomy. A resolution was
moved in the Council of State to that effect and the Secretary of State accepted India’s claim in
principle. Accordingly, a Fiscal Commission was appointed the same year to examine the Tariff policy

141
of India. The Report recommended the policy of discriminating protection to certain industries and
also the creation of a permanent Tariff Board to determine the claims of various industries, such as,
iron and steel, cotton, paper, sugar, etc. In 1921 a Department of Industries and Labour was created
in the Cientral Government, and under the Government of India Act 1919, the development of
industries became a provincial subject.

The popular ministers in the provinces seized the op-portunity and tried to develop many local
industries. In this respect the Madras Minister of Industries, K. Venkatareddi Nayudu took the lead.
At the end of 1920 an Advisory Board was appointed there and under its auspices the question of
State aid to industries was discussed. As a result of their discussion, a Bill to regulate State Aid to
Industries (Bill No. 8 of 1922) was passed. This measure was designed to encourage new and nascent
industries and to assist cottage and other small industries to build up their business and to this end
to afford State assistance to industrial enterprise in this Presidency, partly by direct financial

F. 30

aid and partly by providing them raw materials, such as, firewood, water, etc. on favourable terms.’
Elsewhere too Industrial enterprise gained in popularity. “As evidence of the manner in which
industrial enterprises are gaining in popularity, it may be mentioned that there was an increasing
demand for the assistance of the Commercial Intelligence Bureau, which aims at aiding new
industries and expanding existing enterprises by supplying private persons with expert advice and
suitable markets, on sources of raw material and similar questions.”2 Soap and jam making. ink and
glue manufactures got an impetus. A Textile Institute was opened and experts introduced some
time-saving devices for the use of the weavers. Demonstration work was carried on by touring
weaving parties. For the first time sericultural work was undertaken by the Madras Industries
Department and mulberry farm was opened. The Madras Trades School and Leather Trades Institute
did pretty good work.

The work of industrialisation under the Liberal ministers was well on the way, but it emphasized
rather the spectacular aspect and, the investor seemed to have faith in “penny-in-the-slot” industry.
He chose to invest his money into a business which promised quick returns and “boggled at an
enterprise which embolied the long term view”.8

Miscellaneous Measures: Mention might be made here of Chimanlal Setalvad’s work as an executive
councillor in Bombay. In the executive council of Bombay Governor there were two Liberals—
Cowasji Jehangir in charge of the Revenue Department and Setalvad in charge of the Legal
Department. The first thing that Setalvad did was to make an innovation in the process of disposal of
appeals. It was one of the duties of the member in-charge of Law to hear

1 Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution, 1923, Vol. I, pp. 27-28. •

Official Report—India in 1922-23, pp. 143-144.

8 Stanley: The India I Knew, p. 124.

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORE 235

142
appeals from the decisions of the Agency Court in Kathiawar. The practice was that both the
appellant and respondent submitted their arguments and rejoinders respectively to the Legal
Member who gave his decision without hearing the parties. Setalvad’s judicial mind could not put up
with such an unjudicial process and he introduced the system of hearing both the parties despite the
strong opposition of the secretariat officials. The change proved to be satisfactory. It was a bold and
useful judicial reform.

Setalvad also held charge of the development department. This department dealt with the Back Bay
Reclamation Scheme, Suburban Development and Industrial Housing. The reclamation of the Back
Bay was not a new scheme, but it grew imperative in Setalvad’s regime owing to a very serious
shortage of accommodation. Despite all care, the scheme, however, proved a costly failure. But
Setalvad had a large hand in promoting the Sukkur Barrage Project,’ and the skill with which he
piloted the scheme through the Council brought congratulation even from the Governor.

The Liberals’ Work at the Centre: No account of the work of the Liberals during this period can be
complete without including a short account of the work of Liberal Legislators at the Centre. Tej
Bahadur Sapru, as Law Member (1920-22), played a great part in the relaxatin of the policy of
repression. At the motion of V. S. Sastri for the repeal of repressive laws in the Council of State on
Feb. 14, 1921 and Munshi Iswar Saran’s resolution regarding the abandonment of the policy of
repression in the Central Assembly on Jan. 18, 1922, Dr. Sapru through his good offices secured the
passage of the two most important bills: (i) Repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 and
(ii) Repeal of the Indian Press Act of 1910. Thus through Liberal efforts, assisted by other non-official
members were

I Bombav Debates, 1923, Vol. IX., pp. 53-61,

removed from the Statute book two enactments which had

been the subject of the severest criticism for over a decade.

Further, no one can ignore the work of P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer in regard to the military policy of the
Government, while studying the proceedings of central legislature. He moved twenty resolutions on
the subject out of which 17 were adopted and three negatived. At his motion, the Secretary of State
sanctioned the establishment of a Military College at Dehradun, a ‘Territorial Force was started for
different parts of India and Burma and the administrative staff at Army Head-quarters was reduced.
He controverted the assumptions of the Esher Committee that the Indian army might be regarded as
part of the armed forces of the Empire and that India’s military resources might be developed to suit
Imperial purposes. At his instance, measures like India’s capacity to meet military expenditure at the
current level and the training of Indians in national self-defence were discussed by the Military
Requirements Committee and several matters were referred to the Secretary of State at his
recommendations. Through his efforts, the principle of Indianization of the Army was recognised in
February 1923 and an announcement was made that 8 units would be Indianized as soon as
possible.

The name of N. M. Joshi will ever remain linked up with Labour Legislation during this period and his
share in the Indian Factories Amendment Act (11 of 1922), the Indian Mines Act of 1923, and the

143
Workmen’s Compen-sation Act of 1923 which protected labour and laid the beginning of progressive
Labour Legislation can by no means be minimised.

As a result of the Resolution of Mr. Samarth, a Bombay Liberal, Government agreed to abolish racial
distil ctions in September 1921 between Indians and Europeans in matter of criminal trials.

Again, through the efforts of non-official members, a

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 237

good many of them belonging to the Liberal Party, the Ac-worth Committee was appointed and Mr.
V. S. Srinivas Sastri was one of its leading members. Its report published on Sep. 23, 1921 made
many important recommendations in the field of railway administration, such as, the nationalisation
of Indian railways, separation of railway from general finance and the reorganisation of the Railway
Boad. Eventually the Legislative Assembly and the Government accepted most of the Committee’s
recommendations.’

Through several private bills, again, the Liberal Legislators stimulated public opinion in respect of
social problems. Seshagiri Aiyer, a Liberal from Madras, moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend
the Hindu Law relating to the exclusion from inheritance of certain classes of heirs. Dr. Gour
introduced a bill prescribing a registered instrument as necessary for a valid adoption, but it was
negatived. Seshagiri Aiyer also introduced a bill to amend the Hindu Law of inheritance in certain
particulars. Latthe moved a bill to amend the law relating to the emoluments claimable by Warander
Hindu Priests.

Rangachariar introduced two bills in the Legislative Assembly (1922) one to extend to all high courts
the powers of Habeas Corpus and the other to provide safeguards against indiscriminate use of
Sections 144 and 147 of Cr. P. C. in dealing with political cases. Both bills were, however, rejected.
Lakshmi Narayan Agarwala also tried to amend sections 124—A, 153—A and 500 of I.P.C. and 108 of
Cr.P.C. but without any success.

Review: A review of Liberal activities under the new regime, as ministers and legislators thus shows
that the Liberals’ services to the cause of national progress durin(these years were both
considerable and creditable. As ministers, they worked hard and did much to promote and reform
education at all levels, to liberalise the statutes concerning Local

Indian in (1924-25), Appendix X, pp. 423-24.

Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution, Vol. II, (1926), p. 10,

Self-Government, to initiate a policy of progressive prohibition, arid of according direct and indirect
State aid to industries. By their initiative, the services began to be Indianised in a somewhat larger
measure than before. Their influence in the liberalisation of Government policy in general can be
easily detected in the work of Setalvad in Bombay and of Sir Tcj Bahadur Sapru at the Centre. Even in
their failures, one can discern their devotion to the interests of freedom and liberty of the people in
diverse spheres, and their influence on the reorientation of Government policy by resolutions and by

144
the tendering of evidence before Government Committees and Commissions while being necessarily
indeterminable, appears to have been fairly considerable.

All this work was accomplished by men hitherto without any experience of administration, and
working under the double handicap of popular contumely and bureaucratic suspicion. The first did
not disturb them much in their devoted labours, but the second handicap gradually proved to be
both irritating and paralysing. Soon, they became convinced that the dyarchical system needed
drastic reform before any real national progress could be achieved. For one things, the transferred
departments under dyarchy were never able to secure all the funds that they demanded for
promoting nation-building activities.’ The elaborate con

As an illustration, the Madras budget figures may be cited which show that the transferred
departments never got more than 25%-26% of the annual revenue:—

(in Lakhs)

Year Total

Expenditure

1921-

1677.92

1922-

1609.24

1923-

1611.54

Reserved I Transferred

1254.24 I 423.68

1199.

409.49

1192.

419.33

Percentages

Res. Trans.

25

26

29

145
THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 239

trol of the Finance Department upon this expenditure was often disabling. The Meston Award in the
allocation of central aid to provincial finances further crippled the initiative of the ministers. So,
these financial handicaps of the Liberal ministers have to be kept in mind in assessing the measure of
success that they achieved in their administrations.

Apart from this basic handicap, other obstacles soon be-came visible which convinced the Liberals of
the inadequacy of the new system of government. The minority report of the Muddiman
Committee’ signed by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Dr. R. P. Paranjpye and Mr. M. A. Jinnah, contains a
reasoned criticism of that scheme which presents substantially the Liberal view and we cannot do
better than summarise these views here to show what the Liberals had come to think of Dyarchy by
1923. Some complaints made before the Committee’ related to the inadequacy of Dyarchy to pave
the way for further progress on the road to Self-Government, such as the absence of Joint ministerial
responsibility, the overriding powers of the Governors which undermine the ministers’ responsibility
to the legislatures and the impossibility under the Devolution Rules of the Finance Department being
placed under an elected minister. Other points referred to the administrative defects of the new set
up, such as the impossibility of making any clear-cut division between transferred and reserved
departments in practice, the failure of most of the Governors to encourage Joint deliberations
between the Executive councillors and the ministers, the indifferent attitude of the permanent
officials towards the ministerial half of the administration and the financial handicaps referred to
above. The Minority Report’ of the Muddiman Committee undelined the first set of points even
more emphatically.

1 For the appointment of the Committee, see Chapter IX of this thesis, pp. 268-49. •

2 Report of the R.E.C., p. 202. a Report of the R.E.C., p. 153. 4 Report of the R.E.C., p. 202.

Many of the Liberal leaders also submitted individual Memoranda to the Committee.’ Their criticism
can be summed up as being a wholesale condemnation of Dyarchy which was declared to be totally
inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended, viz., as a half-way house to Swaraj. They
declared that no mere tinkering of that scheme would do and that complete Provincial Autonomy,
devolution of authority at the centre except in the Defence, Foreign and Political departments,
relaxation of the Secretary of State’s control over the Government of India, the management of
India’s financial operations in England through a High Commissioner responsible to the Government
of India and the transfer of control over the Services to the Government of India--alone could meet
the requirements of the situation.

A curious feature of this criticism is that while condemning Dyarchy in the provinces, these critics
demanded dyarchy at the centre! But they proposed to remedy its defects by insisting on enlarging
its sphere there, by the reduction of the number of non-votable items in the budget, and on Joint
deliberations, collective responsibility and the reduction of the influence of the permanent services
on the shaping of policy. On the whole, the constructive character of the Liberal criticism of the new
constitution can be safely ad ‘flitted. Indeed, this fact distinguished them from all other critics of
Dyarchy, both nationalist and Anglo-Indians Even later independent criticism of the system2 laid

146
more emphasis on its manifest defects, such as the functioning of governors more as checks on the
ministers than as helpers, reservation of control on the services and the maximisation of friction
between the two incongruent parts of the admi

1 More prominent among them were the late Mr. C. Y. Chintamani, B. S. Kaniath, Chimanlal
Setalvad, Surendra Nath Banerjea and N. M. loshi.

3 Cf. Keral Putra: Working of Dyarchy in India and Dr. A. Appodorai: Dyarchy in Practice, Oxford
University Press, (1948).

THE LIBERAL MINISTRIES AT WORK 241

nistration’—Anglo-Indian criticism of Dyarchy was even more outspoken as 1’teaching (India)

irresponsibility”? Lord Goschen, ex-Governor of Madras, was of the same opinion? Keralputra and
Appodorai elaborated this point in still greater detail. Lord Lytton remarked that ‘the Transferred
half of government was not only disliked but it was despised’.’ Dyarchy thus came by and by to be
nicknamed as ‘political bigamy’ and `die-hard-archy’.5

The truth of the matter seems to be that the Liberals had acceped Dyarchy from the start as a
transitional arrange. ment in the passage from bureaucratic rule to self-government, and that when
they came to work it, they found out its inherent defects even as a temporary expedient. Lord Sinha
asked the critics of the Act of 1919 in the House of Lords: “But is there any practical alternative?”
Actual experience of the new constitution showed that it placed the Liberals on the horns of a
dilemma. Cooperation with the Government laid them open to the charge of being traitors to the
national cause and so deserving of condemnation, while opposition to the reserved half of the
Government within branded them in the eyes of the Governor and the bureaucrats as shirkers of
responsibility! The comparative smoothness with which the new system worked for three years was
indeed a miracle of compromise and practical good sense of the new ministers and legislatures alike,
and as Sir P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer put it, more could hardly he expected of ‘political human nature’
“not merely in India, but in any western country”.7

Appodorai—pp. 362-63.

2 E. Villiers, quoted by Keralputra, p. 50.

3 Asiatic Review XXVI, p. 258.

Joint Committee, 1932-33, II—A., p. 248.

5 R.E.C.R.—Appendix 6, 11, 29; p. B.L.C.

°Speech on the Second Reading of thepovt. of India Bill, Dec. 11, 1919, quoted by Mukerji, p. 572.

7 P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyer: Indian Constitutional Problems, p. 332.

F,

147
“ Meanwhile, the Indian National Congress under Gandhiji’s lead had plunged into the first non-
cooperation movement (1921-23) which ended with the Chauri-Chaura tragedy, Gandhiji’s
withdrawal of the movement and his subsequent imprisonment. The liberal reaction to the
Gandhian movement, and its political repurcussions will be discussed in Chapters VIII IX. We may.
however, point out here that the contemporaneity of Liberal ministries with this movement proved
fatal to their popularity as they came inevitably to be associated with the Government that
attempted to repress t he Congress movement with all their might. So, as the term of the first
reformed legislatures approached its end, the problem of success at the ensuing elections began to
face the Liberals. A new party had since been set up under Congress auspices by C. R. Das and
Motilal Nehru under the name of the Swaraj Party (1923) which decided to contest the elections and
fight the Government from within the legislatures and expose its autocracy. But apart from their
increasing unpopularity, the Liberals had no party organisation also worth the name. Like the
Girondins in Revolutionary France, they had hitherto functioned as a liketninded political group than
as a well-organised political party. Srinivasa Sastri drew his colleagues’ attention to this defect in
19221 and Sir Tej reiterated the same need in 1923,2 and even appointed a sub-committee for the
purpose which however does not seem to have ever submitted a report’ The Liberals were,
therefore, to face the elections of 1923 without any central or local party organisations of their own
to fight against the ubiquitous propaganda of their political rivals.

Presidential Address: N.L.F. Madras, 1922, p. 32.

2 Presidential Address: N.L.F. Poona, 1923, pp. 29-30. Proceedings of 1924 do not make any
mention of the

p.ubmission of any such report,

CHAPTER VIII: INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN

CONGRESS
The second elections under the new Reforms registered the exit of the Liberal Party from the
provincial and central legislatures. Though it ceased to figure as the leading party in Indian politics,
the sequel will show that even its opponents came to adopt several features of the Liberal pro-
gramme in one form or the other. A brief survey of con-temporary politics will reveal this success of
the Liberals.

The Political Situation: The year 1923 was fateful with pregnant events. The Khilafat issue having
been liquidated by the triumphant leadership of Mustafa Kamal Pasha during the closing months of
1922, the ties between the Hindus and the Muslims loosened. The monster of communalism raised
its head again. Riots broke out. The Moplah rebellion was the ghastliest of such outbreaks. The
Hindu Mahasabha embarked upon the Shuddhi movement. There was recrudescence of terroristic
activities. The Chauri Chaura incident made Gandhiji withdraw his non-co-operation movement. In
the words of Mrs. Besant that “it is the queerest revolution that ever was since Gandhi replaced
Tilak, has had the queerest leader, and has now the queerest collapse,”‘ can be found an interesting
commentary of knowledgeable contemporary’s reaction to contemporary events.

148
Foundation of the `Swaraf Party: Gandhiji’s Bardoli decision offended the Congress leaders in jail.
They wanted Gandhiji to continue the movement. But the Mahatma’s decision was irrevocable. He
too was sent to jail on March

3 Quoted in Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. H, p. 155.

243

A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL I’ARTY

10, 1922. After a couple of months, Motilal was released and under his direction, the All India
Congress Committee met at Lucknow on June 10, 1922 to take stock of the situation and appointed
a Committee popularly known as the Civil Disobedience Inquiry Committee to consider the question
whether civil disobedience could be continued in some form, Its report, which was drawn up by
Motilal Nehru, candidly admitted that several items of non-co-operation had failed but stressed the
necessity of Council entry as the cir-cumstances had altered. Every year, measures affecting the daily
life of the people were being enacted and fresh taxation and huge liabilities were being imposed.
This decision revealed that the hypnotic influence of the ‘Prophet of Politics’ had waned and the
veterans like Motilal Nehru and C. R. Das were restive. It was too much to expect from them that
they would remain inactive till Gandhiji was released.

So, on January 1, 1923, they formed the Swarajist Party with the avowed object of smashing the
Councils and wrecking the constitution from within. The new party had arranged for funds and had
behind it willing workers, an active press, the stirring oratory of Das and the organising capacity of
Motilal Nehru and later on the blessing of Gandhiji also.

The Liberal Defeat—Its Causes: In the election of 1923, the Liberals were pitted against the
Swarajists, but the former found themselves in a very disadvantageous position. The Liberal Party
was identified with the alien Government and little credit was given to it for its legislative
achievements. The Liberal ministries had no doubt failed to register any such dramatic achievementS
as could have attracted the attention of the electorate but as we have seen in the previous chapter
they had clone much solid work. This was, however, ‘ taken for granted. Their association with the
‘Satanic’ Government which dealt strongly and

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 245

harshly with the patriots was, on the other hand, wholly counted against them. In the prevailing
atmosphere of patriotic self-sacrifice; the Liberal policy of acceptance of office was imputed to their
love of office. When jail-going was rated to be the hall-mark of patriotism, any association with the
alien government was considered as a betrayal of the national cause. Further, the tenure of their
power in the Councils for three years had adversely affected their coherence as a party. The elected
members in the legislatures also tended to adopt an attitude of opposition to the Exe-cutive because
of the prevailing atmosphere of opposition to the Government in the country and thus failed to get
an advantage from the party’s cooperation with the Government. This became particularly clear in
the summer of 1923. On the enhancement of the Salt Duty by certification of the Viceroy, the
Liberals expressed the greatest dissatisfaction. Even this went, however, against the Liberal Party.

149
People could not appreciate the Liberal stand in condemning a system which they had been working
for the last three years. Even the constituencies which had sent up Liberals in 1921 failed to
understand this blowing hot and cold in the same breath on their part. On top of everything came
the very unsatisfactory Kenya decision a few days before the election by which Indians in that colony
were granted the franchise only on a communal basis and it was concluded that the Liberals had
failed to secure a respectable place for Indians even in a Crown Colony directly subject to the
imperial Government with which they still wanted to remain associated.

Another disadvantage of the Liberals was the skilful propaganda of the Swarajists “to make
government through the Assembly and the Councils impossible”. The elections resulted in the
displacement of the Liberals by the Swarajists. Except in the C.P., the strength of Swarajists in other

provincial legislatures was not so great as could have enabled

them to have exerted any effective influence on the govern-ment without the cooperaion of the
other parties. In the C.P. they were in a majority but they refused to accept office as ministers, and
voted down every government measure. They carried a vote of want of confidence against the
ministers and fixed by their vote the minister’s salary at Rs. 2 per annum. But in the Punjab, in the
U.P., in Bihar, in Madras and in Bombay the Swarajists, policy was, in practice, not essentially
different from that of the Liberals. Both agreed that the Act of 1919 was unsatisfactory and should
be revised and efforts should be made to press for constitutional advance, to vindicate the rights of
the Indians overseas, to Indianize the army and the Public Services, to secure protective tariff, etc. In
the Central Legislature also, the Swarajists did not deviate much front the policy of their
predecessors except at times in methods even though they had a solid block of 45 seats in the
Assembly.

The Liberal Victory: The very decision for Council entry by the Swarajists, it was rightly pointed out
by Sir Tej, was a tribute to Liberal foresight.’ Gandhiji knew that entering Councils, with a vow not to
cooperate, was like getting into water with a pledge not to get drenched, and so he suggested to the
Swarajists to promote the constructive programme of the Congress through the legislatures. In fact,
all talk of wrecking the Councils and change of circums-tances was meant to take the wind out of the
sails of the Liberal Party. Even the plea of non-cooperation by non-acceptance of office could also
not hold good for long. Motilal accepted a scat on the Indian Sandhurst Committee in 1925, and V. J.
Patel was elected as the first non-offcial president of the Central Assembly the same year. A sober
section of the Swarajists was already in favour of office acceptance. So, S. B. Tambe, a Swarajist
leader of C.P., accepted an executive councielorship in his province. Motilal con

1 Report of N.L.F. Poona, 1923, p. 20.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 247

demned this action, but it was defended 15y other Swarajists like Moonje, Jayakar and Kelkar, who
felt that after the failure of non-cooperation, the “policy of hide-bound obstruction,”‘ was to be
given up for “responsive cooperation”. The Swarajist Party cracked, and even Motilal’s skill could not
mend the crack.

150
The Responsivists Path’: On February 14, 1926, the dissenters formed the Responsivists Party at
Akola with Jayakar as its President and declared responsive cooperation as their creed. A pact was,
however, made by the two wings at Sabarmati on April 20, 1926 and it appeared that the Swarajists
would walk in and form ministries. But again Motilal laid down some conditions. So the Sabarmati
Pact lapsed and the Responsivists seceded from the Swarajists.

Why Could They Not Join the Liberals? Both the wings of the Swarajists were for the acceptance of
office with or without conditions. In fact, there was no difference bet-ween the Liberals and the
Responsivists except in nomen-clature. Nevertheless, the Swarajists and the Responsivists never
made common cause with the Liberal Party. Sir Sivaswami assigned a number of causes to this
phenomenon. Firstly, he said, the policy of moderation did not appeal to the popular mind in the
same way as the policy of out and out opposition to the Government; secondly, the Liberal Party
could never indulge in any sweeping denunciation of the Government nor could it promise a
millennium in months; and. in the third place, the Swarajists party owed its prestige to the
personality of Gandhiji, which they had fully exploited to advance their cause. The Swarajists party
had further the advantage of the widespread organisation of tbo., Congress and its prestige on their
side, and the Swarajist leaders could not, in honour, leave the Mahatma in the lurch and join the
Liberal Party. Lastly, it was

Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. II, p. 272. 2 Report of N.L.F., Akola, 1926, p. 23.

1 Thompson Rc Garratt: Rise & Fulfilment of British Rule in India, pp. 618-19.

politic to incur unpopularity by joining hands with a party that stood discredited in popular
estimation and at the polling booths. The adoption in practice of any portions of Liberal policy or
joining hands with them on specific issues was one thing, but to coalesce with them and sail under
common colours was different and alike impolitic and impracticable.

The Role of the Liberals After 1923: The stray indivi-duals from among the Liberals who found a
place in the Legislatures as avowed Liberals or as Independents now could not, however, materially
affect the course of current politics. Their chief function after 1923 lay outside the legislatures. We
shall have occasion to discuss this great contribution of theirs from outside in the next chapter. In
the meanwhile, “intransigent nationalism had entered the legislatures, and another phase (in the
national movement) began. No longer was there any question of a new constitution developing from
dyarchy, or of liberty broadening from precedent to precedent. From 1924 began the interminable
series of Commissions of Enquiry, of formal and informal consultations with leading Indians,’” which
was to culminate in the Round ‘fable Conferences and the Government of India Act of 1935.

The true explanation of this formal eclipse of the Liberal Party lay in the differences of outlook
between them and the nationalists under the magnetic lead of Gandhiji, and it is desirable to
consider these differences now before we proceed to deal with the history of the Liberal Party after
1923.

The Rise of Gandhiji: Gandhiji’s emergence in Indian politics synchronised with the passage of the
Government of India Act of 1919. His earlier career in S. Africa is so well-known that it is not
necessary to recapitulate it here

151
INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 249

beyond saying that he returned to India in 1916 with the halo of a successful struggle with the race-
proud S. African Government whose accredited leader, G. Smuts, later des-cribed Gandhiji as “a
prince among men”. Gokhale’s famous account of Gandhiji at work in his Passive Resistance
movement in S. Africa was known to most politically-minded Indians already. He had served the
Empire gallantly in the Zulu war, the S. African War and the Great War in capacities open to an
avowed pacifist like him, and had even been decorated for his services. His first brush with the
Indian Government in Champaran was in line with the usual methods of political work, and proved
successful in the end. After Gokhale and Tilak, the former of whom he claimed as his Guru and of the
latter he claimed to be the political heir, there was no individual even then in Indian politics who
possessed the same personal prestige of political success behind him or who seemed to combine in
his own person the two main streams of Indian political thought and activity. It was this perhaps
which explains the ease with which he stepped to the leadership of the Congress in 1919-20 with
which he had hitherto had little to do even after his return to India.

A foretaste of what was to follow under his leadership was provided by him in Feb., 1916 in his
famous speech at the Foundation of the Banaras Hindu University when in the most unconventional
language he chastised the attending Indian princes for their luxury and ostentation in the midst of
India’s abasing poverty, and to Lord Hardinge’s face deplored the atmosphere of distrust of Indians
by the authorities.’ In another speech, he told his audience that “you cannot serve God and
Mammon both is an economic truth of the highest value,” and that “if we will but clean our houses,
our palaces and temples of the attributes of wealth rd sow in them the

1 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. 1, pp. 220-25. F. 32

attributes of morality, one can offer battle to any combination of hostile forces, without having to
carry the burden of a heavy militia. Let us seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, the
irrevocable promise is that everything will be added unto us.”‘ On several other occasions during this
time, he also gave expression to his burning passion for Swadeshism in language, dress and thought,
and for the abolition of untouchability, etc. Much, therefore, of his later programme was already
known when the enactment of the Rowlatt Acts even before the implementation of the new
Reforms stung the country into fury and convinced Gandhiji of the alafides of the Government.

His reaction to the situation has already been referred to in Chapter VII.2 Our task here is to analyse
the reasons which kept the Indian Liberals aloof from him despite a sincere and reverent admiration
for his character and achievements. They were fully aware that they had none among them who
“lived his own philosophy” like Gandhiji and none also who could command the allegiance of all the
Liberals with the same completeness as Gandhiji did in the Congress fold. This fact constituted both
the weakness and the strength of the Liberals: a weakness because the party was never able to
achieve that cohesion and solidarity that serve as the life-force of any assemblage of men, and
strength because it gave many individuals an opportunity to rise to their fullest stature.

Basic Differences of Outlook: Gandhiji’s Religious Approach to Politics: Perhaps, the basic factor that
kept the Liberals away from the Gandhian Congress and Gandhiji, despite their unaffected respect

152
for him, was his intrusion of religion into politics. Gandhiji was essentially a man of reli gion. To him
“a man without religion is a ship without rud

1 Speech at Muir Central College, Allahabad, on Dec. 22, 1916, quoted in Tendulkar’s ]Mahatma, Vol.
I, pp. 240-42.

2 See p. 207.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 251

der”. But religion to him did not consist in certain do’s and don’ts. In a meeting at Rangoon, Gandhiji
said, while defining his philosophy of life: “My mission is not merely freedom of India, though today
it undoubtedly engrosses practically the whole of my life and the whole of my time. But through
realization of the freedom of India, I hope to realise and carry on the mission of brotherhood of man.
My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing, and I should reject that patriotism which
sought to mount upon the distress or exploitation of other nationalities. I want to realise
brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human but with such beings as crawl on
earth.’” All activities of his life sprang from this spiritual faith. His social reforms, his economic
principles and even his views on the fine arts had a spiritual basis. For him “politics bereft of religion
is absolute dirt, ever to be shunned.” In politics also, he had to establish the kingdom of Heaven.2

This emphasis on religion and a religious approach to Politics was bound to make the Liberals
suspicious of the new prophet’s political gospel. The Fathers of the Congress had scrupulously
eschewed all reference to religion in their crusade for Swaraj and even gone out of their way to
emphasize the secular character of the nationalist movement because they feared that any such use
of religion would only accentuate fissiparous tendencies among the nationalists. For the same
reason, they had even refused to let the Congress be involved in questions of social reform. To them
religion was a purely personal matter whose light should shine unobtrusively on life and conduct,
but which should not obtrude itself on ‘the domain of Caesar’. There is room here for great
differences of opinion, but it needs must be

1 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. 2, p. 4644

2Statement of Gandhiji at C.R.’s house at Darjeeling in June, 1925.

stated in this connection that Jinnah never tired in subsequent years to label the Congress as a
“Hindu” organisation. There can also be little doubt that the religious tinge in the politics of the
Gandhian Congress contributed not a little to the rise and growth of Muslim communalism.

The British Connection: A second fundamental belief of the Liberals was that India’s association with
Britain was the result of a providential arrangement.’ R. P. Paranjpye said in 1922 that “the
fundamental basis on which the Liberal Party takes its stand is a belief, on the whole, in the
righteousness of the British people and of the British Empire. In spite of occasional mishaps, one
might say, that if this belief was not ingrained amongst us, we should not be Liberals but might have
joined some other party in this country.”2 This was said after Jallianwalla and other Panjab
atrocsities which drove Gandhi to resort to Non-co-operation. V. S. Srinivas Sastri and Sivaswami

153
Aiyer deplored the loss of faith in the minds of educated Indians in the sincerity and justice of British
rule on account of Gandhian agitation and were anxious to restore the faith of the people in the
good intentions of the Governments

The Liberal Party claimed to have a discerning and dis-criminating trust in the Government. But. they
were always disposed to make favourable presumptions in favour of the established government.
Even great provocations could not tempt them to assume an attitude of non-co-operation with it.
Though not satisfied with what had been achieved by co-operation, they felt that more could have
been done if the Congress, which boycotted the first elections and the Swarajists who tried
obstruction after the second, had also joined hands with them. The Liberals believed that the
working of the constitution was a powerful factor in strengthening

Tendulkarrs Mahatma, Vol. II. pp. 248-49.

2 Report of N.L.F. (Resolution 2) Nagpur, December, 1922.

2 Ibid., Presidential Address by V. S. Sastri, December, 1922, p.

17.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 253

the Indian case for the quick realization of full responsible government. In regard to the method, the
Liberals believed that, without adequate preparation of the people, little pressure could be bought
on the Government. That could be done by the education of the electorate. Thus a stage must arrive
when the rulers should find it prudent to yield. That was the reason why the attitude of the Liberal
Party towards the reforms was one of criticism on grounds of reason, and of co-operation in working
them. “It has consistently acted on the principle”, says Sir Moropant Joshi, “of co-operation
wherever possible and opposition whenever necessary”.1

It was further claimed by the exponents of the Liberal Party that “Liberalism is uniformly consistent”,
whereas the policy of the Congress was marked by consistent inconsistency! After the failure of non-
co-operation, the Swarajists appeared as the vanguard of the Congress party with obstruction as
their weapon to wreck the constitution, but their scheme failed to make Government yield to public
opinion. Then, a large section of the Swarajists Party took another turn and declared themselves as
Responsivists. They joined hands with the Independents in Bombay and formed the Indian National
Party and adopted the establishment of Swaraj of the Dominion type as their aim. Their method was
similar to the one of the Liberals, viz., responsive cooperation by all peaceful and legitimate means
within the legislature. Motilal Nehru dubbed the new Party as a “conglomerate in the first stage of
geological formation”? Moropant, not without justification, regarded it as “the Liberal doctrine with
a camouflage”.g In 1937, Gandhiji himself, who swore by ‘non-co-operation’ and ‘civil disobedience’,
took a gentleman’s promise from the Government to work

1 Presidential Address of Sir Moropant joshi, Report of N.L.F., Calcutta, 1925, p. 97.

2 Quoted in Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, p. 307.

3 Presidential Address of Sir Moropant Tiosh i, Reported of N.L.F., Calcutta, 1925, p. 97.

154
2

Provincial autonomy. According to the Liberal Party there could be no better vindication of the
soundness of their own policies and methods. In the opinion of Sir Cowasji Jehangir, “If there is
evidence of the wisdom of the policy adopted by non-congressmen (especially the Liberals) it was
the presence of Mr. Gandhi in England as the most important and most honoured delegate of the
1931. Conference”.1

In brief, the Liberal Party worked to secure Dominion Status and a system of democratic
parliamentary self-government for India. It eschewed non-co-operation, civil disobedience, and
direct action from its methods. It had unshakeable faith in constitutional and parliamentary
methods, always advocated the policy of getting into the legislatures and taking office and
considered their boycott as detrimental to the interest of the country. It regarded the British con-
nection useful for not merely the attainment of Swaraj but also for a self-governing India. It looked
upon complete independence as not only infeasible but undesirable also. Sir Tej, who was not in the
habit of mincing matters, said that “questions of independence and questions of that type may
satisfy your vanity, may pander the vanity of the people who do not understand the bearings of the
question, but it will make you ridiculous in the eyes of men who understand the bearings of the
question and it will impose a responsibility ....which you will not be able to divest yourselves of, if
and when the time for testing your aims and professions arrives”.2 He did not think the attainment
of independence was practicable. He said, “ ....it is no use indulging in a language of that type when
you know that if it is a possibility, it is a possibility which may happen not in your life-time or in the
life-time of your sons, but in distant future.... “3

Presidential Address by Gowasji Jehangir, N.L.F., Lucknow, 1936, p. 23.

2 Presidential Address by Sir Tej, Report of N.L.F., Poona, 1923.

P. 97.

2 Ibid., p. 97.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 255

In 1936, Cowasji Jehangir reiterated the view that “we have always stood for Dominion Status as a
practical and feasible goal of our ambition”.’ V. N. Chandavarkar, speaking in 1940, did not think
complete independence desirable also, “for we do not desire to go back to pre-British rule in India
much less to fall an easy prey to any conqueror from the East and the West, the North and the
South”.2 Sir Cowasji struck a note of warning that just as “Always Late” were the words written on
the walls of the India Office, implying great caution and hesitation to do the right thing at the right
moment, “let there not be written on our walls the words “Lost Opportunities”, for the loss “of every
opportunity would prove suicidal to India’s progress”. “A statesman”, said he, “should follow public
opinion; doubtless as a coachman follows his horses, having firm hold on the reins and guiding
them”.3 He concluded his address with the promise that the Liberals would continue to believe that
“the three great ends for a statesmen are security to possessors, facility to acquirers, and liberty and
hope to the people”.* He claimed it as a credit for the Liberal Party that they had always followed
these maxims against heavy odds.

155
The Liberals were neither reactionaries nor hot-gos-pellers. Neither reaction nor wild-cat schemes of
revolu-tion and reform could claim their allegiance. They always tried to represent what Hume called
“a genuine parliamen-tary frame of mind” and were satisfied to play the role of the opposition while
they could not be the Government. They tried to focus public opinion on the immediate ques-tion in
hand and seek to solve it by discussion and argument with an open mind. In the words of V. N.
Chandavarkar,

Presidential Address by Gowasji, Report of N.L.F., Lucknow, 1936, p. 23.

2 Presidential Address Report of N.L.F., Calcutta, 1940, p. 31.

3 & *Presidential Address by Gowasji Jeliangir, Report of N.L.F., Lucknow, 1936, p. 37.

A HISTORY OF rHE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

“while Liberalism is keen on ‘avoiding the dangers of a cata-clysm’, it is definitely opposed also to
the equally serious menace of stagnation”.1 The same Liberal elucidated the essence of Liberal
statesmanship in the following remarks: “A right conception of political method, based on a rightly
interpreted experience of the conditions on which societies combine order with freedom, and
progress with order, must lead the wise conservative to accept the small change lest the worst
befall, and should lead the wise innovator to seize the change of a small improvement while
necessarily working in the direction of great ones.”2 In short, regulated liberty and progress, wisdom
and sobriety were the guiding tenets of the Liberal creed.

Gandhi’.s Ideas About Swaraj: All this was fundamen-tally antithetical to the ideology that now
dominated the Congress under Gandhiji’s lead. His enunciation of the meaning of “Swaraj”—the
objective of Congress activity since 1906—appeared to his Liberal contemporaries as not only
different front their objective of Dominion Status within the Empire, but protean in character. He
defined it as “an all satisfying goal for all times.... intelligible to the masses.... (and) infinitely greater
than and (including) independence”!

The Swaraj of Gandhiji’s dream had both negative as well as positive aspects. On the negative side
he wanted freedom from the ‘satanic rule’ which had ruined India men-tally, morally and spiritually,
from the law-courts which denied justice and murdered truth, from the immoral com-merce to
protect which the British rule regarded no means too mean, from doctors who practised not to do
good but to amass riches, from the military expenditure which kept mil-lions in a state of semi-
starvation and polluted thousands of

1 Presidential Address by V. N. Chandavarkar, Report of N.L.F., Calcutta, 1940, p. 23.

2 Ibid., p. 26.

* Young India, Jan. 12, 1928.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 257

156
mouths with intoxicating liquor, from that aspect of science which had converted man into a
machine, created dullness, unemployment, inequality and caused extremes of richness and poverty,
from all thraldom of patronage and, finally, from the very system of British Administration and their
institutions which aimed at perpetuating the authority of the British. He was opposed to the system
itself and would have attacked it with as little compunction even if the system was worked by Indian
officers. He did not relish the Liberal idea of citizenship within the British Empire.’ On the positive
side Gandhian Swaraj had in mind an India in which the poorest would feel that it was their country,
in which there would he no class distinctions of high and low, there would he perfect harmony
between different communities, which would be free from the curse of untouchability and
intoxicants, in which women would enjoy equal rights with men, in which there would he peace with
the rest of the world, neither exploiting nor being exploited, and in which all interests not in conflict
with the interest of the dumb millions would he scrupulously respected.2 In short, Gandhian Swaraj
was not so much anti-British as it involved a whole programme of social and political reconstruction
on radical lines with a bias against modern Western methods and institutions.

In his occasional, more specific definitions of “Swaraj”, however, it was by no means “intelligible
even to the elect, not to speak, as the Liberals suspected, “to the masses”. At one time, he defined it
as “to be within the Empire if possible, and without it if necessary”.3 His concept of Dominion Status
was “present ability to sever the British connec

Young India, Quoted in Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, pp. 428-430.

2 Gandhiji’s talk with Reuter’s special correspondent on board the ship to attend the R.T.C.,
Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 141.

8 Quoted from Young India by Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, p. 318.

F. 33

tion if I wish to “.1 He considered “golden shackles. ... far worse than the iron ones”,2 and was not
afraid of violence and chaos that might result from the severance of the British connection which
meant slavery. Gandhiji and his chief lieutenants, however, did not conceive of independence as
severance of all connections with Britain or the rest of the world. He was in favour of “universal
inter-dependence rather than independence”.3 Motilal Nehru affirmed the same ideas from the
Presidential dais in 1 9284—Jawaharlal Nehru said the same thing in his Presidential address to the
Lahore Congress in 1929: Independence for us means complete freedom from British domination
and British imperialism. Having attained it, India would welcome all attempts at world co-operation
and federation and would agree to give up part of her own independence to a larger group of which
she was an equal partner-.5 As late as 1937, Gandhiji wrote to Polak that, in his personal view, “if
Dominion Status with the right to secede was offered, I would accept it”;$ but by 19,10, he said that
if India was unfit for inde-pendence, let her plunge into a civil war or fall a prey to foreign
aggression. “Let her learn wisdom and the art of self-defence by becoming free”.7

It is obvious that these conceptions of the objectives of lndia’s national movement could not
possibly appeal to the Liberal mind. In 1920, they could not characterise the British Government as
‘satanic’ without being false to their whole history since 1885, however, much they might deplore

157
1 Statement in response to British sympathisers’ cables. (Nov. 1929), Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. I I,
p. 502.

2 Young India, Jan. 9, 1923.

3 Presidential Address, Belgaum Congress, 1924, Congress Presi-dential Addresses, p. 745.

*Cf. his Address to Calcutta Congress. 1928: Banerjee’s Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. III, pp.
181-184.

5 Presidential Address, Lahore 1929: Congress Presidential Addresses, Vol. II, p. 891.

Tendulkar’s ‘1 Aithatina’, Vol. V, p. 315.

Ibid., p. 316.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 259

the excesses of General Dyer and the bureaucracy in India whom they always considered as apart
from the British people. With all their sense of religious, social and economic divisions in India, they
did not hold that it was realistic politics to press for immediate independence. They felt that
Domiinion Status would mean all that the most sanguine Indian patriot could desire, and they did
not think that the talk of severing all connection with Britain was either good politics or sound
history. This difference of outlook and objective became therefore another impassable hurdle
between the Liberals and the Gandhian Congress.

Difference of Political Methods: 7’he Khadi Movement: A third obstacle to co-operation between the
Liberals and the Gandhian Congress was constituted by the political methods adopted by Gandhiji. It
was a common ground between them that neither an armed rebellion nor revolutionary terrorism
could lead India to her desired goal. The former was neither feasible nor promising, and the latter
was utterly foreign to the entire cultural tradition of India. Gandhiji, as Tilak’s heir, thought that the
Liberal way of protest, negotiations and compromise, was also a failure and that this method needed
reinforcement by direct sanctions. The whole history of Post-War relations between India and
England proved this, as it appeared to him.

To Gandhiji, the means were as important as the end. Pure means would ensure pure results. He
was convinced that the power that could wrest justice from the unwilling hands of the British was
Satyagrah in its varied forms of Civil Disobedience, non-co-operation and individual satyagrah.
Satyagrah was a “non-violent” weapon and superior to all violent methods though he held also that
even violence was better than cowardice.’ Gandhiji claimed to be a practical idealist and he believed
that dynamic non-violence, involving “conscious suffering” could• successfully defy the

1 Young India: Doctrine of the Sword, Aug. 11, 1920.

whole might of an unjust empire, even if practised by a single individual rightly.

The positive side of Satyagrah was the constructive pro-gramme which he placed before the
Congress in 1920 for approval and immediate implementation. As late as December 1941 he

158
published a pamphlet’ dealing with it and assuring his followers that if the whole of the constructive
programme could be successfully implemented, it would lead to the immediate attainment of
independence. The pamphlet was a reasoned exposition of the 13 items of the programme which
included among other things communal unity, abolition of untouchability, prohibition, promotion of
Khadi and other village industries, basic education, uplift of women and promotion of
Rashtrabhasha. The bulk of this programme was unexceptionable even to the Liberals. As explained
in chapter V, social reform, prohibition, uplift of women and educational reform had always held a
high place in their activities. But Gandhiji’s extra emphasis on the promotion of Khadi and other
village industries and his seeming neglect of modern large-scale industries, on the promotion of
Hindi as Rashtrabhasha and his ideas about ‘Nai Talitn’ appeared to them to be over—exaggerated.
They were fully convinced that social reform must keep pace with political progress but they did not
think that the two could be or need be combined as intimately in a purely political programme and
certainly, communal unity or social reform could not be made a sine qua non of the other.

The future economy of the country, as envisaged by the Liberals, co-ordinated agriculture with trade
and industry but this integration was based on Western models and it was on the whole urban in
character. The village did not figure so prominently in it as in the Gandhian programme and Khadi
and other village industries, while enjoying a due place on it, did not enjoy the pre-eminence that
Gandhiji

Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. VI, p. 21.,

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 261

gave to them. A comprehensive economic programme was laid down by the National Liberal
Federation at its Lucknow Session in 1936.1 A perusal of that document shows that while the
Liberals were anxious to promote the well-being of the villages, reform of education and prohibition
they had no scheme of radical reorganisation of the social economic or educational institutions of
the country.

The truth is that it was Gandhiji who ‘discovered’ the Indian village and, unlike the Liberals, made it
the centre of his activities. He saw in the course of his countrywide tours the appalling misery and
poverty of the toiling millions in the countryside and sought to give them a supplementary industry
to earn a little extra money in their spare hours, to revive the inimitable artistic talent which was
once expressed in the wonderful fabrics that were the envy of the world.2 He felt that there could
be no substitute for such a universal subsidiary industry as spinning3 to provide work for all that
needed no special skill, to save the Rs. 60 crores of annual expenditure on imported cloth’ and above
all a work which was spiritually superior to work in the mills as it brought some gain, not to those
who were already rich, but to the starving and needy millions. So, he raised the slogan: “Take up the
wheel betimes or perish”, and ignored the criticism and the ridicule of friend and foe alike. The

1 N.L.F. 1936, Lucknow, p. 64. Resolution moved by Pt. H. N. Kunzru, it included—I. Fixing of tenures
and fair rents, II. Statutory fixation of revenue assesment, III. Relief of rural indebtedness through
Conciliation Boards, Co-operative and Land Mortgage Banks, IV. Check on fragmentation of holdings,
V. State aid to big and small industries, VI. A fiscal and monetary policy wholly in India’s interest, VII.
Ameliorative Labour legislation, VIII. Early introduction of free and compulsory education for boys

159
and girls, IX. Reform of education to give it a technical bias, X. Promotion of medical relief and
sanitation in rural areas and XI. An active policy of temperance.

2 Young India, Feb. 16, 1921.

3 Ibid., Nov. 21, 1929.

Speech Feb. 1929, Quoted in Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, p. 453.

A HlsTORY OF THE. INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

Servant of India, a liberal paper, made fun of his claim that the spinning wheel protected woman’s
virtue, and Gandhiji defended himself by pointing out that it did so by helping the widow and the
orphan to work in the home and saved her from the demoralisation of the mill-yard or the roadway.
Writing to Tagore, he said that the Poet’s criticism of the Charkha was “a poetic licence, not to be
taken literally”, that while he wanted all Indians to spill for half an hour a day to realise the essential
oneness of interest of all Indians and as a symbol of sacrifice for the nation, the idle and the
famishing could spin for a living.’ He held that the Charkha could be an unfailing cure of India’s
chronic poverty and an insurance against famine. He called the Spinning Wheel as India’s Kamdhenu
which could supply all her wants2 and than which there was “no better way of industrialising the
villages of India”.”

The popularising of Khaddar and the spinning wheel became the major activity of Congressmen and
of Gandhiji personally in the subsequent years. The wearing of Khadi and daily spinning were made
compulsory for all Congressmen. Foreign cloth was not only to be eschewed, but in 1920 and 1921
bon-fires were made of such clothing obtained by persuasion, gift and pressure. The Khadi cap
became the badge of patriots. Gandhiji personally sold Khadi.’ Everywhere that he went he declared
that Swaraj cannot be secured without Khaddar. The Charkha was to be the mightiest lever of the
nation’s salvation. To Saklatwala, the Communist M.P., he said that “Khaddar delivers the poor from
the bonds of the rich, and creates a moral and spiritual bond between the classes and the masses. It
is

1 Young India, Nov. 5, 1925.

2 M. K. Gandhi: ‘Economics of Khadi’ (Navajivan Press, Ahmedabad, 1941), p. 30.

3 Speech at Comilla, .Jan. 5, 1927, Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, pp. 324-325.

4 As at Gondia, C. P. Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. II, p. 333.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 263

becoming the centre of other village industries ....has the greatest organising power.... because it
affects all India.... and its success means the best organisation along peaceful lines”.1 Picketing of
foreign cloth shops became soon an inevitable corollary of Khadi propaganda.

It is probably true that Khadi carried the message of Swaraj into every hamlet and village of India,
and gave even to the humblest an opportunity to contribute his mite to the national cause and to

160
participate personally in the making of the national revolution. It was a great equaliser of the rich
and the poor. It slowly became a living symbol of national resurgence and revival in every sphere of
national life. The Liberals, however, could not accept all that Gandhiji claimed for Khadi. They had no
doubts about its economic value for the unemployed and the semi-employed, but they had no faith
in its values as a political weapon. The prescription of Khadi dress and spinning for Congressmen, the
bon-fires of foreign clothing, the whole anti-British bias of the propaganda, the acerbity that it
introduced into political activity went against their grain. Even in 1905-06, as we have shown in
chapter V, they had accepted boycott of British goods only as a temporary and regional expedient,
and they now also found it impossible to agree to all that was claimed for it as a panacea for national
regeneration and national independence. They feared, as in 1905-06, that the Khadi propaganda
would further embitter Anglo-Indian relations. Above all, they pooh-poohed the sartorial command
that Congressmen and patriots should dress only in Khadi. The Liberals feared also that the emphasis
implied in all this propaganda on Khadi and small-scale industries presaged a deplorable imbalance
in the future economy of the country and a rejection of modern progress and of the most powerful
source of national wealth.

1 Interview: Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. II p. 337.

They did not agree that it could by itself abolish the appalling poverty of the Indian masses. There is
thus little doubt that one of the causes that prevented Liberal—Congress rapproachtnent after 1920,
in spite of a good deal of commonness of aim and method, specially after 1923, was this over-
emphasis of Congress leadership on the promotion and use of Khadi and its lop-sided economic
programme.

Difference,c of General Economic Outlook: The eco-nomic programme of the Congress as enunciated
at the Karachi Cngress in 1931 laid down a comprehensive plan of radical legislation for the benefit
of the labouring classes. progressive taxes on agricultural income and inheritance, abolition of salt
duty, state control of key-industries and prohibition. Other items on it. such as the reduction of rent
and revenue demands, of military expenditure. control over Exchange and Currency. abolition of
usury, tariff protection for industries, had long figured in the Liberal programme already.

After 1923. Mr. N. M. Joshi of the Servants of India Society may be taken as a representative of the
Liberal Party and its economic views. Joshi is perhaps the greatest pioneer of the Labour movement
in India. He thought it to be necessary for India to avail herself of the long experience of Western
countries in controlling the evils of modern industrialism and accordingly he was an untiring
advocate of progressive labour legislation to fix minimum wages and hours of work, to promote
housing, sanitation and education for the workers, and the provision of insurance against unem-
ployment, old age pensions, and the active assistance of workers in forming trade unions to protect
their interests.’ But he believed in the maxim: “Industrialise or perish” and fought for protection for
Indian industries by direct State aid rather than by high tariff walls which would mean

I Resolutions—N.L.F., 1925-28.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 265

161
higher prices for the poor.’ He favoured the means test for taxation.’ He opposed the private
company manage-ment of Indian Railways which neglected the III class passengers.’ It will be thus
seen that if the credit for setting the Swaraj movement on its legs and pioneering Swadeshi in 1906
goes to the Liberals, the Labour movement in India and its progressive outlook also owe much to
them.

But, the Congress programme as a whole needs to be compared with the one laid down by the
National Liberal Federation in 1936, already referred to above, to discover the wide divergence of
economic aims between the two parties. The items relating to progressive taxation of the rich,
abolition of salt duty, state control of industries, etc. adumbrated a programme of State Socialism
which the Liberals regarded as somewhat impracticable and visionary in the existing circumstances
of India, even though justification might be found for it in the legislation of contemporary Western
countries. The landlords, the rich mill-owners, the lawyers, and the intelligentsia within the Liberal
Party could not be expected to approve of this radical, and as many of them felt, “irresponsible”
programme of the Gandhian Congress.

To the charge of the ‘discriminatory’ nature of this programme, Gandhiji replied that “without
discrimination between the interests of the two (the British “top-dog” and the Indian “under-dog), it
was to perpetuate Indian helotage” and that “in order to remove the inequalities, the privilege of
the ruling class and those others who have shared them shall be reduced so as to reach a state of
equality between all classes and communities”.’ The radical, expropriatory and discriminatory
features of the plan appeared to the Liberals as not only visionary but also likely to throw

Joshi’s Resolution: India’s Parliament, Vol. V. 1923, pp.

154-156.

2 India’s Parliament, Vol. IX, pp. 188-191. Ibid., Vol. X, pp. 215-218.

4 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 91•

F. 34

a gigantic spanner into the plant of national solidarity, limited as it was at the time. There was some
unavoidable misunderstanding in this too, for the Gandhian programme did not aim at the total
liquidation of the capitalist, the Zamindar or the princes. The capitalist, however, was to be the
trustee of the nation and share his wealth with the poor and the worker. Such reservations arc,
however, apt to be ignored and passed over in the heat of political controversy.

Thus the Liberal and the Gandhian views of the future national economy agreed in as much as both
of them aimed at the amelioration of the lot of the masses. Both vied with each other in their
indictment of the British policy of economic exploitation and in their love of Swadeshi. The miserable
plight of the average man stung both with equal anguish and poignancy. Both favoured protection
for rearing up nascent industries. The basic difference between the two was that the Liberals wanted
the economic regeneration of the country through Western methods. Their implied emphasis on
mass production and on the use of machinery in improvement of agriculture awl other industries,

162
their preference for the British system and British institutions showed that they preferred to
remodel and reconstruct India mostly on Western lines. Gandhiji’s emphasis on the Charkha, very
limited uSe of machinery, aversion to mass production—a religious conception of Swadeshi—and his
preference for indigenous institutions created a widening gulf which the Liberals found it difficult to
cross. The Liberal scheme seemed to plan for the immediate present; the Gandhian scheme planned
for the inauguration of “Ramraj” which might serve as a model for the world to follow.

Questions of Social Reform: This leads us to the consideration of the social programme of Liberalism
and the Gandhian Congress. An outline of social reform as pioneered by Raja Rammohan Roy and
systematised by Ranade and a few others has beeh given in the previous chapters.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 267

A brief summary may be given here to distinguish it from the Gandhian pattern of social reform:

The Liberals did not favour scattered or isolated reforms To them all aspects of progress were inter-
mixed in one organic whole.’ They believed that in social reforms conservation of the old and the
tried insti-tution was as indispensable as change and reform.’ But it is difficult to brand them as
either revivalists or revo-lutionaries. They believed that in India many things deserved to be revived,
e.g., the freer social polity of the Vedic times, the purer theism of the Upanishads, the lofty morality
of the Gita, etc. But it was also their conviction that society was a living oganism and it was governed
by the law of growth and evolution. Mere antiquity was no consideration for the inclusion of a
certain custom or practice.8 Revivalism could be given a place to a certain limit, beyond which
reformation was the only remedy. They were prepared to adopt a revolutionary attitude in cases of
parasitical and degenerate social growths, such as untouchability or Sati.

‘You cannot have a good social system when you find yourself low in the scale of political rights, nor
can you be fit to exercise political rights and, privileges unless your social system is based on reason
andjustice’—Miscellaneous Writings of Mr. Justice Ranade (1915), p. 232.

2 `To say that it is possible to build up a new fabric on new lines without any help from the past is to
say that I am self-born and my father and grand-father need not have troubled for me’—Ranade’s
address. Report of the National Social Conference, Poona, 1895—Appendix A, p. 6.

3 To such revivalists Ranade said, “What shall we revive? Shall we revive the old habits of our people
when the most sacred of caste indulged in all the abominations....of animal food and drink which
exhausted every section of our country’s Zoology and Botany? ....Shall we revive the 12 forms of
sons, eight forms of marriages which included capture and recognised mixed and illegitimate
intercourse? Shall we revive the Niyoag system....?....shall we revive the Shakti worship of the left
hand with its indecencies and practical debaucheries? Shall we revive the Sati and infanticide
customs or the flinging of living men into the rivers, or over rocks or hook-swinging or the crushing
beneath Jagannatlf Car?”—Ranade’s speech ‘Revival and Reforms’ Report of N.S.C., Amraoti, 1897,
pp. 8-9.

Unlike Tilak, the Liberals thought that there was no harm if the foreign government interfered in our
social matters on our request. Ranade epitomised the Liberal conception of social reform in that

163
there should be a change from constraint to freedom, from credulity to faith, from status to
contract, from authority to reason, from unorganised to organised life, from biogotry to toleration
and from blind fatalism to persevering human effort for personal and national progress. “This is”
said Mr. Ranade, “what I understand by social evolution both for individuals and society in this
country”.1 In making this change, Ranade prescribed that all the methods, namely, traditional
method by which caste organisations or Acharyas undertook reforms pledge method, by which
appeal was made to man’s sense of honour and the legislative method ought to be employed.
Besides these the method of annual Conferences to exchange notes was also necessary.2 For a
reformer also the Liberals prescribed a moral Code. He was to infuse in himself the light and warmth
of nature and this could be done by self-purification.’

They believed in a dynamic society and did not think that 4000 years ago the future growth of
society had been determined.` Society is a constant continuum.’ In the present state of society new
factors have come into being and in any social set up they have to be reckoned with. Society is to
grow and to evolve and in its growth and evolution the services of various social sciences and
physical sciences are to be availed.6 It cannot grow in isolation. In this growth education is of

1 Ranade’s Inaugural Address, Report of N. S. C., Allahabad, 1892.

a Ranade’s speech, Report of N.S.C., Amraoti, 1897, p. 12. a Ibid., p. 13.

4 P. N. Sapru’s speech, C. S. Debates, pp. 672-73, April 8, 1938.

5 Ibid., C. S. Debates, Vol. I, Feb. 27, 1939, pp. 388-89. Ibid., p. 389.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 269

Kunzru’s speech, C. S. Debates, Vol. I, 1937.

2 P. N. Sapru’s speech, C. S. Debates:*April 8, 1938, pp. 672-73.

vital assistance. They favoured equal status to women and even divorce and advocated right of
property to them.’ In their judgment “Freedom in the social sphere and the economic sphere is just
as important as freedom in the political sphere. If we get freedom without freedom to order our
lives that freedom means nothing”.2

Gandhiji’s 13 point constructive programme was very much akin to Ranade’s co-ordinated system of
reforms. There was one great difference between the two. In the Gandhian programme, each
worker was expected to follow in practice all the thirteen items with meticulous scrupulousness.
One may have love for and interest in Cottage Industries, but it might be that he may not be equally
interested in the question of Hindu-Muslim unity or the removal of untouchability. Ranade did not
let the platforms of different refornis come into clash with each other. Probably he thought that
there could be a man interested in the work of regeneration of his sub-caste, according to Ranade’s
programme he was free to do it. There could be an association devoted to the work of purging
temples of currupt practices, Ranade would permit it to do that. In Ranade’s judgment if the effect
of any of them was not calculated to be prejudicial to the interests of the nation, it deserved all
encouragement.

164
Caste and Untouchability: Besides these bed-rock social principles of the Liberal and Gandhian
constructive programme, we have, to examine Liberal views orr the burning social problems of the
day and to find out where they agreed and disagreed with Gandhian views. Ranade regarded
untouchability and the child-widow as the two major sins of Indian society.

The same idea had been aptly put by Manohar Lal Zutshi, a renowned Liberal, that there have been
two chief defects of our social system: -(i) apotheosis of blood and (ii) apotheosis of sex. The first has
culminated in the caste system with untouchability as its ugliest appendage. Manohar Lal Zutshi.
Chandvarkar, Srinivas Sastri, P. Seshadri, etc. considered that the caste system had been the cause of
the ruin of the country. Manohar Lal Zutshi says that the chief cause of the fall of the Roman Empire
was the absence of national life in the community and believes it to be true of the fall of the Hindu
race also. And the chief cause of this great national defect is “the institution of the caste and the
exclusive and centrifugal spirit which it fosters”. “Whatever its origin and whatever its benefits in the
past, caste as we see it to-day is the greatest monster which we have to kill.”‘ S. Somasundaram
Pillai said, “If there is any evil which brings the nation to ruin, it is caste.”2 Srinivas Sastri, speaking at
a meeting in Durban, said that “the origin of the caste system was really based on colour prejudice
of the Aryan races against the aborigines. It is this caste system that has been the ruin of this
counry.”3 Sober social re-formers like Ranade and Bhandarkar understood that as a foundation for
economic, social and politifal organisation of Hindu society caste had outlived its utility and was
operating as a brake. To what extent the caste structure could be modified was an issue on which
Ranade was prepared for a reasonable compromise. Bhandarkar observed that “the germs of caste
formed an essential ingredient of our blood”. To eradicate them is perhaps as hopeless as drying up
the

Manoharlal Zutshi, speech as chairman of Reception Committee, Report of the 30th N.S.C., Lucknow,
1916 (Bombay 1917), p. 8.

2S. S. Pillai, while seconding the resolution regarding abolition of caste. Report of N.S.C., Lucknow,
1916, p. 46.

8 Quoted by Chandvarkar in his resolution regarding improvement of untouchables. Report cif N.L.F.,
Bombay, 1929.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 271

Indian Ocean.”‘ He therefore advised his audience to try to form a nation with caste by forgetting
differences in practical matters and bringing about a fusion of sub-castes.

Even those Liberals, who thought the annihilation of caste as an impossibility and its existence not
wholly harmful, tried to establish that it was not birth but character and merit that determined the
caste. “So long as the principle that rise and fall depended on personal merit and demerit remained
operative, advancement and progress were achieved but since merit became supplanted by birth in
a class, decadence crept in gradually.”2 This section of Liberals advocated interlining and inter-
marriage.

165
Caste system is responsible for the birth and long perpetuation of untouchability. No Liberal ever
said anything in its defence. They were convinced that it must go. If there was any difference it was
with regard to the means to be used for its removal—by legislation or compulsion or education of
public opinion or persuasion. The National Liberal Federation, the chief forum of the Liberal Party,
though convinced of the gross sinfulness of keeping a large section of Hindu society as untouchable
and unapproachable, was divided as to whether the Federation platform could be used for
discussion of religious and social questions. In 1933, in the annual session of the National Liberation
Federation at Madras, Dewan Bahadur V. Bashyan Iyengar moved a resolution regarding the removal
of untouchability. An amendment was moved by Dewan Bahadur Raghava Iyer that as the
Federation comprehended in its fold all classes of political workers irrespective of religion, caste or
community it could discuss only political and economic questions and not social or religious
questions. A heated discussion took place in which prominent Liberals like

Dr. Bhandarkar’s Sholapur Address: The 16th N.S.C., Ahmeda-bad, 1902, (Appendix I), p. 140.

2 Presidential address by B. Jyotish Swarup: Report of 30th N.S.C. Lucknow, 1916, pp. 81-82.

Mahbub-ul-Huq, P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer took part. The amendment was lost, only nine voting for it,
and the original resolution was carried by a large majority.

The Liberals opposed untouchability because it was

socially unjust, it was economically deleterious and it was

anti-national. Manohar Lal Zutshi’s argument is this:’

Men are born with unequal talents. This inequa-lity should not be magnified. Let society give every
in-dividual an equality of opportunity. This will allow every individual the fullest and freest
development of his rapacity. Vaishnavism offered this opportunity to all in the realm of Bhakti. In the
Republic of God everybody is equal. The result was that we have had a glorious galaxy of Vaishnav
Saints. Given the same equality in other directions of our national life we can expect the same
harvest. “Who knows what wealth of talent lies buried in the so-called Depressed classes?”‘ Some
Liberals from before and more after the Yarvada

Pact appreciated Gandhiji’s services to the cause of the re

moval of untouchability. Every year such resolutions were

passed from the platforms of the National Liberal Federation

and the Provincial Liberal Conferences. Such approbation

of the Mahatma’s work in this sphere minimised the differ

ences between the two parties.

166
But Gandhiji’s views on caste system and untouch-ability form a subject for a thesis in themselves.
Gandhiji wrote* that he did not believe in the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. “It
has its limitations and de-fects but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about

I Manohar Lal Zutshi: N.S.C., Lucknow, 1916, pp. 4-12. Ibid., p. 9.

• Gandhiji asked Ambedkar to give his message for the first issue of ‘Harijan’. He refused to give a
message but expressed his views on the Hindu organisation. “The outcaste is a by-product of the
caste system.... And nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste
system.”—Tendulkar’s Mahatma’, Vol. HI, p. 236.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 273

untouchability and if it is a by-product of caste system, it is in the same sense that an ugly growth is
of a body or weeds of a crop. It is as wrong to destroy caste because of the outcaste, as it would be
to destroy a body because of an ugly growth in it or of a crop because of the weeds.”‘ According to
him untouchability was not the by-product of caste system but of the mentality of the ‘high-and-
lowness’. Purged of untouchability caste system would emerge into Varna Dharm in its pristine
purity—the four divisions of society each equal to and dependent on the other.’

Gandhiji’s ‘Varnashram’ “is a universal law stated in so many words of Hinduism. It is a law of
spiritual economics”. No nation of the West or East could seek exemption from it. This law,
according to him, was discovered by the Rishis with a view “to set free man’s energy for higher
pursuits in life”. In Gandhian Varnashram there was no place for superiority or inferiority, it
permitted him to dine with anybody who could give him clean food, to permit a pariah girl to live
under his roof as his daughter—accommodate Pancham families with whom it was a privilege to
dine. His Varnashram did not permit him to bow down even before the most powerful but
compelled him “to bow down his head in all humility before knowledge, purity, before every person
where I see God face to face”.8

Gandhiji went to the extent of defending Brahaminism despite the sorrowful spectacle of the
Brahmin and said that there was no system other than Hinduism under which a class has been set
apart from generation to generation for the exclusive pursuit of divine knowledge and consigned to
voluntary poverty.’ In his opinion the idea of ‘Chatur varna’ was a peculiarity of the social
consciousness of the Hindus. The law of Varna establishes certain spheres of

1 Re 2 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 237. Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. II, pp. 374-75. 4 Ibid., Vol.
III, p. 240. •

F. 35

action for certain people with certain .tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. While
recognising limitations, the law of Varna admitted of no distinctions of high and low; on one hand it
guaranteed to each the fruit of his labour and on the other it prevented one class from pressing
upon the other. This great law has been degraded and fallen into disrepute. “But my conviction is

167
that an ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully understood
and given effect to.”1

As said before it was a religious duty with Gandhiji to see an end of untouchability. Those who
insinuate a political motive in his activities relating to the Harijan movement arc probably not fair to
him. When he said that if untouchability was not removed root and branch, Hinduism was bound to
perish, his soul echoed that no religion can ever nurture itself on the degradation of its votaries. He
laid open his heart at the Second Round Table Conference when he said, “I would far rather that
Hinduism died than that untouchability lived. I will not bargain their rights for the Kingdom of the
whole world.”2 It was not bluff or bluster when he said that any attempt at cutting off the Harijan
from Hinduism, he would resist with his life’ and the sequel testified to the earnestness of his
pledge.

But Gandhiji did not lose sight of the practical side of the question. People in their zeal began inter-
dining and inter-marriage with untouchables. He said that dining and intermarriage would stunt
Hindu Society and it would be unwise in a hurricane campaign to over-weigh and endanger the main
issue. It might amount to breach of faith with the masses to call upon them suddenly to view the
removal of untouchability in a different form from what they had been taught to believe it to be. It is
an example of ,his political

1 Interview to Prof. Nirmal Kumar Bose, Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. IV, pp. 16-16.

2 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol, III, p. 161.

a Ibid., p. 161.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 275

insight. He had • no objection to both these things in his own life and did not regard them as being
against the dictates of the Dharma, since he gave his blessings to the marriage of his son with the
daughter of Raj Gopalachariar.1

Now we can take up other social evils attendant on the ‘apotheosis of sex’. Child-marriage, enforced
widowhood, Sati, seclusion of the Zenana, parda system, dowries, sectional high and lowness in
marriages, illiteracy among women, etc., are some of the evils pertaining to the sex. They had been
fought both by the Liberals and Gandhiji singly and in collaboration with his band of followers. There
does not appear to be any appreciable difference between the two parties in regard to the reform of
these evils. Both the parties had recognised equaliy of sexes and accorded equal place to them in the
declaration of the scheme of fundamental rights. Gandhiji emphasized the religious aspect of the
question. In his opinion change of heart was more effective than change of mind. Moreover, any
change brought about on religious grounds in India weathers all odds and it lends a helping hand in
the domains of society and politics also. Bhandarkar, as a shrewd student of History, understood this
and suggested to the social reformer “to devise a radical course of reform based upon the reform of
Hindu religion. A religious belief is calculated to invigorate the conscience, and social reform will
then become an imperative duty.”2 But the Liberals in general eschewed religion from political
questions. They wanted to keep their secular outlook clean and unalloyed by any dogma, myth,
sentiment, custom, etc.

168
In the reports of the Social Conferences held from year to year by Liberal Social Reformers general
state-ments of marriages and funerals performed amongst

Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 225.

2 Dr. Bhandarkar’s Sholapur Address—leeport N.S.C., Ahmedabad, 1902, p. 143.

action for certain people with certain tendencies. This avoided all unworthy competition. While
recognising limitations, the law of Varna admitted of no distinctions of high and low; on one hand it
guaranteed to each the fruit of his labour and on the other it prevented one class from pressing
upon the other. This great law has been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that
an ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of this law are fully understood and
given effect to.”‘

As said before it was a religious duty with Gandhiji to see an end of untouchability. Those who
insinuate a political tnotive in his activities relating to the Harijan movement are probably not fair to
him. When he said that if untouchability was not removed root and branch, Hinduism was bound to
perish, his soul echoed that no religion can ever nurture itself on the degradation of its votaries. He
laid open his heart at the Second Round Table Conference when he said, “I would far rather that
Hinduism died than that untouchability lived. I will not bargain their rights for the Kingdom of the
whole world.”2 It was not bluff or bluster when he said that any attempt at cutting off the Harijan
from Hinduism, he would resist with his life’ and the sequel testified to the earnestness of his
pledge.

But Gandhiji did not lose sight of the practical side of the question. People in their zeal began inter-
dining and inter-marriage with untouchables. He said that dining and intermarriage would stunt
Hindu Society and it would be unwise in a hurricane campaign to over-weigh and endanger the main
issue. It might amount to breach of faith with the masses to call upon them suddenly to view the
removal of untouchability in a different form from what they had been taught to believe it to be. It is
an example of his political

1 Interview to Prof. Nirmal Kumar Bose, Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. IV, pp. 16-16.

2 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 161.

*Ibid., p. 161.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 275

insight. He had. no objection to both these things in his own life and did not regard them as being
against the dictates of the Dhartna, since he gave his blessings to the marriage of his son with the
daughter of Raj Gopalachariar.1

Now we can take up other social evils attendant on the ‘apotheosis of sex’. Child-marriage, enforced
widowhood, Sati, seclusion of the Zenana, parda system, dowries, sectional high and lowness in
marriages, illiteracy among women, etc., are some of the evils pertaining to the sex. They had been
fought both by the Liberals and Gandhiji singly and in collaboration with his band of followers. There

169
does not appear to be any appreciable difference between the two parties in regard to the reform of
these evils. Both the parties had recognised equaliy of sexes and accorded equal place to them in the
declaration of the scheme of fundamental rights. Gandhiji emphasized the religious aspect of the
question. In his opinion change of heart was more effective than change of mind. Moreover, any
change brought about on religious grounds in India weathers all odds and it lends a helping hand in
the domains of society and politics also. Bhandarkar, as a shrewd student of History, understood this
and suggested to the social reformer “to devise a radical course of reform based upon the reform of
Hindu religion. A religious belief is calculated to invigorate the conscience, and social reform will
then become an imperative duty.”2 But the Liberals in general eschewed religion from political
questions. They wanted to keep their secular outlook clean and unalloyed by any dogma, myth,
sentiment, custom, etc.

In the reports of the Social Conferences held from year to year by Liberal Social Reformers general
state-ments of marriages and funerals performed amongst

1 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol. III, p. 225.

2 Dr. Bhandarkar’s Sholapur Address—Report N.S.C., Ahmedabad, 1902, p. 143.

various communities of some provinces are available to show that people generally observed the
rules of age, expenses, tyag and wedding party in marriages and funerals. To take an illustration
from a statement of 1902 out of the total 3925 marriages performed amongst the Rajput in different
States of Rajputana 3800 were according to Rule, only 143 were against Rule in respect of age; out
of a total of 3943, 3925 were according to Rule, only 18 against Rule, in respect of expenses; out of
the same total 3928 were according to Rule, 15 against the Rule, in respect of Tyag; out of the same
total 3832 ewre according to the Rule, ill against the Rule, in respect of Wedding party, out of 1875
funerals, 1426 were solemnized according to the Rule, 8 against the rule, 41 pending in respect of
funerals.’ This state-ment indicates the measure of success achieved by the Liberals in social
reforms.

Prohibition: In regard to prohibition, both the parties played an equally laudable part. It was
Dadabhai who raised the question of stopping opium traffic with China. Gokhale condemned it in
unscathing terms in the Indian Central Legislature and preferred to starve than to touch the tainted
money. Gandhiji said, “I would rather have India reduced to a State of pauperism than have
thousands of drunkards in our midst. I would rather have India without education, if that is the price
to be paid for making it dry.”2

On one more point it is said that there was a good deal of difference of opinion between the Liberals
and the Gandhian Congress. It is this:—Should the country proceed to accomplish social reform or
political reforms first? Should there be a judicious mixture of both? Will social

1 The 16th Indian N.S.C. held at Ahmedabad, 1902, (Appendix 5), p. 153. See Appendizt, pp. 153-54.

2 Gandhiji’s Speech at a meeting in Madras, Tendulkar’s Mahatma’, Vol. II, p. 370.

1 Dr. Bhandarkar’s Sholapur addreas,.keport N.S.C., 1902, (Appendix 1), p. 142.

170
INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 277

advancement automatically lead to political freedom? Will political freedom bring in its wake social
adjustment? It is difficult to allot one point of view to one party. The Liberals themselves were not
unanimous on this issue. Bhandarkar was of opinion that for the sake of national effi-ciency it is
essential that work of vigorous social reforms should be taken up and social evolution should not be
left to time, for time is not force; it is simply a category of the understanding to distinguish one
event from another. The best way of doing it is to continue making reforms which in due course of
time may themselves become custom and because he says, “My view of our people is that the great
Shastra or spiritual adviser whom they obey is custom, and if the Guru or Shastra goes against this,
they will be disobeyed and set aside.”‘ Thus the sober section of the Liberals and Gandhiji do not see
any wrong in the concept of Law of the Varna.

Education: On two more vital issues there was ideolo-gical disagreement between the Liberal Party
and the Gan-dhian Congress—Education and Hindu-Muslim Unity. Liberals were great educationists
in whom any country could legitimately take pride. All notable Liberals were connected in some
form or the other with the propagation and organisation of Education. Ranade had been professor
of English and History in Elphinstone College. So was Dadabhai Naoroji, Pheroze Shah Mehta,
Ranade and Telang insisted that though the Universities were not departments of Government they
should be regarded as State institutions and should be provided with funds adequate to their needs
and responsibilities. Later on, the Liberals made attempts to de-officialize University Education.
Gokhale’s association with several institutions and his advocacy of primary Educational Bill signalise
him as a great educationist. Surendra

nath Banerjea was not only a professor • but founder of a College. Rash Bihary Chose was the vice-
chancellor of Calcutta University. Under Setalvad, Bombay University made rapid strides. The
Universities of the U.P., Lucknow and Allahabad owe their present position to the endeavours of C.
Y. Chintamani, Gokaran Nath, Iqbal Narain Gurtu and Pandit FIirdayanath Kunzru. Dr. Paranjpye was
the Principal of a leading College of Poona. These names, which are indicative and by no means
exhaustive, are enough to testify to the fact that education was the favourite topic of the Liberals.
They seemed to ‘have grasped the advice given by Lord Ripon on the eve of his departure: “My first
words of advice to you is education, my next word of advice is education, my last word of advice to
you is education.”

The Liberals had realized the value of Lord Playfair’s remark that “the competition of the world has
become a competition of intellect”. They planned as to how the children of India were to hold their
own in the intellectual competition of the world. For this purpose they had a plan for all stages and
aspects of education. They were keen to introduce free and compulsory elementary education both
for boys and girls and longed to see no village without a school nor a home with an illiterate
member. In regard to the secondary stage they held that it should be “self-sufficient and not
subservient.... to University education”.1 It must mark a definite stage in the career of a boy for
which he has received a proper training.2 They aspired for security of the means to the people to get
the highest education. Only then the motto of V. Krishnaswami Ayer—I live on the past, in the
present for the future, ‘they realized, would materialise. About the necessity of University
education, C. Y.

171
1 2 Convocation Address by the Rt. Hon. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru at the Patna University on Nov. 30,
1935; Famous Convocation Addresses, 1936, p. 221.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 279

Chintamani said: “A literate Indian population, but without a Ram Mohan Roy or Ranade, a
Vivekanand or Vidyasagar, a Salar Jung or Madhava Rao, a Dadabhai Naoroji or Gokhale, a Gandhi or
Tagore—what could it have done for itself, for the motherland, for humanity.” He wanted one kind
of education for everybody—the best; and fully agreed with Sir Norman Lockyer that “ ....No one
should be stopped save by his own incapacity..... A perfect scheme of education should make the
complete man, intellectually, morally and physically. It must not be limited merely to intellect.”2 C.
Y. Chintamani wanted to secure to his countrymen balanced education and agreed with Lord Balfour
that industrial work unbalanced by literary work, literary and industrial work unbalanced by
speculative work, are unfit to form the mental sustenance and substance of academic training.3 In
his opinion “there should not stand jealous tariffs between the free communication of ideas”. The
true University, according to his view, should be ‘catholic in its range’ and ‘cosmopolitan in its
composition’.

In Chintamani’s judgment the governing consideration at the elementary stage should be extension
or diffusion, at the secondary stage extension and efficiency, but at the highest efficiency should be
the sole consideration.*

But the Liberals were not blind to the need of the hour. They had a recipe for the galloping
unemployment. Hirdayanath Kunzru recommended such reform of education as was indicated by
the great and increasing difficulty experienced by educated young men in getting employment
without prejudice to the wider diffusion of Liberal education, but with special regard to the training
of larger number for

12 Convocation Address by Mr. C. Y. Chintamani at Lucknow University on 26th Nov. 1932; Famous
Addresses, Allahabad, 1936, p. 156.

3 Convocation Address by Mr. C. Y. Chintamani at Lucknow University on Nov. 26, 1982; Ibid., p. 158.

4 Ibid., p. 160.

wealth-producing occupations by increase of facilities for technical education.’

With the spread of education they did not fail to em-phasize the value of discipline. Gokhale used to
say that the British Empire in India was not a mere accident or freak of nature but there were
antecedent conditions which made it possible. He was impressed with the Englishman’s sense of
discipline, organisation, unity, purposefulness, determination and loyalty to his own land. It was for
this reason that Ranade told his countrymen that the British in India had to play a double role of
rulers and teachers. Chiman Lal Setalvad said: “Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gokhale and
the Liberal leaders of the last generation never encouraged University students to dabble in politics
and current controversies. But the evil has now grown and spread to such an extent that Universities
should make an united effort against it.”‘

172
The Liberals were never tired of emphasizing the need for greater and greater development of
English education, for in their opinion it came to their country as a gift which galvanized the
moribund and morbid national consciousness. Though they tried to swim with the currents of the
day at times, and emphasized the necessity of the development of the provincial languages, and
some amongst them condescended to speak in annual gatherings in them, yet their passion for
English language betrayed them in such utterances: “While I was in favour of encouraging the study
of vernaculars, I said I wanted the University of Bombay to be our one window towards the West
through which world culture might continue to pour in and humanise and elevate us.”‘

1 H. N. Kunzru’s resolution regarding Economic Development report of N.L.F. at Lucknow, 1986.

2 Convocation Address by Setalvad at Nagpur University in 1928. *Convocation Address retold in his
book entitled ‘Recollections and Reflections, by C. Seolvad, p. 220.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 281

Gandhiji, however, looked upon the present system of education with horror and distrust. Instead of
developing the mental and moral faculties of the little children it dwarfed them.’ He wanted to lay
down the foundation of National education with the object of throwing off the yoke of European
culture and inculcating in the educands the ideal of a united India. His ideal was the synthesis of
different cultures that have come to stay in India, that have influenced Indian life, and that, in their
turn, have themselves been influenced by the Indian spirit. “This synthesis will naturally be of
Swadeshi type, where each culture is assured its legitimate place and not of the American pattern,
where one dominant culture absorbs the rest and where the aim is not towards harmony, but
towards an artificial and forced unity.”2

In his opinion English was a link which fastened his country to the chain of Western culture. So he
wanted to disengage the country from it at the earliest opportunity. In his opinion, English could
never become the national language of India. What national wastage, he pointed out, was there to
attain knowledge through the medium of English I

He wanted to make the Devanagri script universal in India, but till Hindu-Muslim tension was there,
it could be made a script for all languages derived from the Sanskrit and Dravidian stocks. If the
present scripts could be replaced by Devanagri for all practical and national purposes, it would mean
a tremendous step forward. It would solidify Hindu India and would bring the provinces in closer
touch. If Devanagri script was made compulsory at least for Hindus in all schools and all the
important literature in different Indian languages was printed in it, it would be the best way

1 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. I, p. 260.

2 Gandhi Speech on the occasio:rootit founding the National

University of Gujrat at Ahmedabad; T ulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, Vol, p. 29.

F. 36

173
to learn provincial languages. He made it clear that Hindi language and Devanagri script should be
adopted for interprovincial purposes. Till there was a tension between the two major communities it
could be written in Devanagri and Persian scripts. Gandhiji was opposed to the Roman-script,
because it was foreign in origin and unscientific and not so easy as Devanagri.

Gandhiji wanted to make adult education self-supporting. So he devised a type of education known
as Basic education where the entire education was to centre round a particular craft. He deemed
cotton spinning and the allied processes to be par excellence for the purpose. In his opinion what
was true of adult education applied to University education also. “It must be organically related to
the Indian scene. It must, therefore, be an extension and continuation of basic education course.
That was the central point.”1 “The aim of University education should be to turn out true servants of
the people.... therefore .... Universities should be co-ordinate and brought into line with basic
education by taking in teachers from the Talimi Sangh.”2

To a question, if basic education be conducted minus the self-support basis, Gandhiji said that
though it was not a priori condition but to him it was the acid test. He wanted that even at the end
of seven years scheduled for completion of basic education, income and expenditure must balance
each other, otherwise the very idea of basic education would be negated.

In regard to the place of English in this programme, Gandhiji said: “I must cling to my mother-
tongue, as to my mother’s breast, in spite of its shortcomings....I love the English tongue in its own
place, but I am its inveterate

,1•••• •

2 & 2 Gandhiji said in a Conference of Education Ministers from the Congress Provinces ft, August
1946; Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. VII, p. 208.

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 283

opponent if it usurps a place which does not belong to it.”‘ Even realising its place in the world he
could accord English a place as a second optional language, not in the school but in the University
stage.2

In brief, to have a bird’s eye-view of the stand taken by the two schools of thought, it may be said
that the Liberals were more willing advocates of the Western civilization and Gandhiji leaned more
towards indigenous culture. Accordingly the Liberals hugged the English tongue which lent them a
key to that store of wealth. Gandhi spurned it because it fastened his country to an alien culture. The
Liberals, with English as the basis, wanted to overhaul the entire system within a western
framework. Gandhiji wanted to scrape it off and rebuild a new system of his own. Gandhiji’s
originality lies in devising a new system known as basic education or Nai Talim. Craft and self-
support were its special features.

Hindu-Muslim Unity: In respect of Hindu-Muslim unity Gandhiji left no stone unturned to achieve a
“unity of hearts” between the two communities. He was basically right. The Liberals too realised the
importance of the issue with one difference that with Gandhiji it was a matter of faith but with the
Liberals it was, in the words of ‘Al Kafir’, ‘a business proposition’. Gandhiji charmed the Ali Brothers
by his sincerity, but after the settlement of the Khilafat issue, this charm wore off. In fact, both the

174
Liberals and the Congress Party found themselves unable to battle against circumstances which had
been adroitly put in their way. The Muslims were being wooed both by the Imperialists and the
Nationalists and the former were more powerful and in a position to offer a better deal than the
latter who had nothing but their hearts to present. The Muslim community, ready to coquet but not
to marry either of the two, decided to take

‘ & 2 Tendulkar’s ‘Mahatma’, V21.,„010141, p. 213,

Dr. I. Prasad and S K. Subedar: ‘A History of Modern India’, p. 414,

the fullest advantage of both the power-pelf and privilege offered by the one, and of the sincerity
offered by the other. The Nationalists, including both the Liberals and Gandhiji, failed to solve the
tangle—the former through their heads and the latter through his heart. The initial mistake was
committed by the Liberals in registering their assent to separate electorates in 1909 and by Gandhiji
by his acquiescence in it at the second Round Table Conference. But how keenly Gandhiji felt the
tension between the two communities can be gathered from his utterances—one such is given
below by way of illustration: Gandhiji said, “I dare not touch the problem of Hindu-Muslim Unity. It
has passed out of human hands alone. Even as Draupadi forsaken by her husbands and forsaken by
men and gods alike, asked God and God alone to come to her help and God gave her unfail-ing help,
so it is with me and so should it be with every one of us. Let us ask for help from God and.... tell Him
that we, His creatures have failed to do what we ought to do, we hate one another.... we fly at one
another’s throat and even become assassins”. “It was a curious irony of fate,” as Dr. I. Prasad aptly
remarks, “that Mahatma Gandhi who lived and died for Hindu-Muslim unity should be the person
whose entry into politics should synchronise with the development of a greater intensity in Muslim
Communalism.”1 The Liberals could manage to rope Jinnah in their schemes of reforms in 1916 but
he later broke the bond thinking that the salvation of his community did not lie in the Gandhian way.

To recapitulate we can say that Gandhism differed krom Liberalism in:—

1. Rejecting any Providential significance in the IndoBritish political link;

INDIAN LIBERALS AND THE GANDHIAN CONGRESS 285

2. respecting the inevitability of gradualness in the achievement of Swaraj as a method of

political strategy;

3. his political technique—means, methods and aims;

4. more emphasis on individual than on collective action, e.g., individual Satyagrah;

5. more emphasis on ruralism than on urbanism-’mass-contact’ versus Drawing room

politicians, khadi, village reconstruction, Nai-Talim, etc. ;

6. considering politics as an element of religion as against secularization of politics;

7. a conservative rather than a radical approach to social questions, and,

175
8. rejection of the implications of the modern idea of progress which the Liberals held so dear,
e.g., modern industrialism, hospitals, railways, universities etc.

Z86

CHAPTER IX: THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY (1923-47)

The Liberal Programme after 1923: Though the Libe-rals entered the legislatures in 1921, they had
never regarded the Act of 1919 as perfect. They had raised their voice for its revision as early as 23rd
September, 1921.1 Robert Peel, the Secretary of State, in his despatch2 of November 2, 1921
rejected the request on the grounds that there was room within the structure of the Act for the
legislatures to develop and establish for themselves a position, that the merits and capabilities of the
constitution had not yet been exhausted and that sufficient time had not elapsed to enable the new
machinery to be adequately tested. In another resolution of February 22, 1923 on the Secretary of
State’s despatch, T. Rangachariar, then an Independent and later on a Liberal in 1929,2 expressed
dissatisfaction. He was supported by Munshi Ishwar Saran of the U. P. and Deva Prasad Sarvadhikari,
a Liberal leader of Bengal.* Dr. H. S. Gour, essentially a Liberal in outlook if not by label, moved a
similar resolution in the Central Assembly on July 18, 1923.

Now the Liberals were outside the Legislature. This did not damp their zeal. The National Liberal
Federation met at Poona in December, 1923 under the shadow of their

1 Majumdar’s resolution regarding Constitutional Advance sue-ported by Munshi lshwar Sharan and
Seshagiri lyer and Sir William s amendment on behalf of the Government recommending to the
Secretary of State to “re-examine” and “revise” “the present Consti-tution at an earlier date than
1929” and accepted by the former as a reasonable solution:—India’s Parliament, Vol. II,
Introduction, pp. XI—Xll.

2 Appendix VI attached to “India in 1922-23” by R. Williams, p. 325.

8 Report—National Liberal Federation, Madras, 1929; p. 62. *India’s Parliament, ‘ThLV, pp. 3-19.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 287

1 Presidential Address, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, N.L.F., Poona

1923. .”1”

crushing defeat at. the polls with Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru as

President. Sir Tej had recently returned after a victory at

the Imperial Conference where he had succeeded in making

the British Government agreeable to reconsider the Kenya

decision. Moreover, the Swarajists’ entry into the Councils

was in itself no small solatium. They now began to agitate

for the revision of the Act of 1919 with renewed zeal. In

176
his Presidential Address, Sir Tej said, “I cannot see how it

is consistent with statesmanship or with the best interests of

England and India to postpone the appointment of a

Commission until 1929.”‘ He made a few suggestions

that the field of administration covered by the central Government should be examined, that the
sphere of functions of the Central and Provincial Governments should be precisely defined, that the
Civil administration of the Central Government should be made res-ponsible to the extent to which
it was made responsible in the provinces, that though there was no hurry to press for control of the
army, yet there must be a definite and steadily progressive programme for the Indianization of the
army and that the Indian Provinces might remain under the direct charge of the Viceroy. He
answered the objections which could he urged against further constitutional advance in the near
future:

(1) It was urged that a democratic, responsible Government in India was an impossibility without an
intelligent and capable electorate. Against this Sir Tej said that you cannot increase the intelligence
of the people by keeping them away from the exercise of these rights. Again, the mass of our people
are shrewd, orderly and responsive to generous treatment and elevating influences. The very idea
that they possess political power and the repeated exercise of it will in itself be

of great educational value. Yet again, want of elementary education should not be a bar to the
expansion of the franchise, as it had not been so in case of England in 1832.

(2) It was further urged that India is a country of warring minorities. His reply was that all rights
of the minorities must be fully protected in any scheme of responsible Government.

In regard to the Hindu-Muslim problem he said that it could be solved. Separate electorates, which
were not only not politically sound but prOductive of a mass of evil in their train, might still be
granted to them unless and until the Muslims themselves changed their attitude. The question of
the amount of representation could be solved in a joint conference by the leaders of all sections of
politicians. As regards the representation of the minorities in the public services, an independent
body like the Public Service Commission might be appointed and entrusted with the work of
recruitment. Religious disputes could be settled if in the constitution of the future the safeguards for
rights and privileges should be expressly provided for. It was also the responsibility of the leaders of
both the communities to see that their differences were amicably settled.

(3) British Interests should be safeguarded. It was no use anticipating the decision of self-
governing India with respect to the Imperial services. Those, who were already in the services, would
be here at least another 25 years, but he urged the recruitment of the services in India.

With the above suggestions and answers to the objections raised by the British Government, Sir Tej
recommended the appointment of a Commission to examine the whole position in respect of the
future constitutional progress of the country.

177
THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 289

The Federation passed an important resolution at Poona in 1923 that full responsible government in
the provinces and complete responsibility in the Central Government, except in military, political and
foreign departments, should be established without delay and for this purpose urged the
appointment of a Committee for making an enquiry into the actual working of the present
constitution and making recommendations in respect of future constitutional advance.

Liberal agitation outside the legislature greatly strength-ened the hands of those inside it and on
February 5. 1924 Diwan Bahadur T. Rangachariar moved in the Legislative Assembly a resolution
recommending to the Governor-General to take steps for revising the Government of India Act so as
to secure for India Dominion Status and full Provincial Autonomy. Motilal Nehru moved an
amendment to this resolution suggesting the summoning of a Round Table Conference to
recommend a draft constitution for India. The amended resolution was passed by a very large
majority. During the debate on the resolution, Sir Malcolm Hailey, who was then Home Member,
raised certain objections* to the grant of Dominion Status to India—some of which had already been
anticipated and answered in the Poona Address by Sir Tej, in 1923.

These objections were answered by Motilal Nehru on the floor of the House and later on most
categorically in the Report of All Parties Conference, (1928) which we propose to discuss at its
proper place. The cumulative effect of the

* (1) That responsible government is different from Dominion Status. Full dominion self-government
is of wider extent. (2) Constitutional progress is to be made by stages. (3) There are many interests
concerning such as (a) Indian States (b) European Com- merce (c) Services (d) minorities, etc. (4) The
problem of defence is the greatest of all lest the power which is placed in the Indian hands by the
ballot box may gravitate in other hands. (5) Tilitt in India political advance has outrun advances

F. 37

Liberal agitation outside and the Swarajists inside was that the Reforms Enquiry Committee was
appointed with Muddiman as its Chairman to see what could be done to improve the working of
dyarchy.

Enough has been said about it in the 7th Chapter. In fact, the Muddiman Committee—its
appointment, its transactions, evidences before it, its report, etc.—were largely influenced by the
Liberals. The minority report and the Liberal memoranda indicated a “Liberal” attitude towards
Dyarchy and a change in their outlook and policy. They reinforced the Swarajists’ demands and
urged the Government to revise the Government of India Act (1919) and thus expedited the
appointment of a Royal Commission. But Government machinery moved slowly. On September 7,
1925, Muddiman, then Home Member of Government of India, moved a resolution in the Central
Assembly recommending the consideration of the recommendations of the Majority Report to
improve the machinery of Government. Mr. Crear, then Home Secretary, moved an identical
resolution in the Council of State. The Leader of the Swarajist Party moved an amendment to the
effect that immediate steps be taken to move the British Government to make a declaration in
Parliament of such changes in the Constitution as would make the Government of India fully

178
responsible and that a Round Table Conference representative of all Indian, European and Anglo-
Indian interests be held to frame a scheme on the above principles and to place it for approval in the
Legislative Assembly, after which it was to be embodied in a statute by the Parliament. The
amendment was carried against the Government by 72 votes to 45. It had received the concurrence
of the Independent Members and Liberal Members of the Assembly especially of Sir Siva-swami
Aiyer, a signatory to the Minority Report.

Once again, during the course of the discussion of the budget in March, 1gt46, another resolution
was moved de

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 291

1 Chintamani’s Resolution on Constittitional Reforms Report N.L.F. Calcutta,, 1925, p. 52 seq.

manding the appointment of a Statutory Commission earlier than 1929. But the resolution was
negatived because the Swarajist Party had vacated their seats in the Assembly.

The Liberal Federation at its 1925 session again reiterated its demands for constitutional reforms. In
a resolution’ Chintamani approved of the Minority Report, expressed disappointment at the
speeches of the Secretary of State and the Viceroy in July and August and laid down the lines of
future reforms:—viz.,

(1) Complete Provincial Autonomy;

(2) Central Government to be responsible to the Legislative Assembly in internal civil

administra-tion;

(3) Control of foreign and political relations and defence in the hands of the Governor-General
for a definite period after which it was to be reviewed by a Commission on which Indian opinion
ought to be adequately represented;

(4) during this period a fixed amount to be allotted for expenditure on departments controlled
by the Governor-General.

(5) in emergency he can spend more, but he shall apprise the Assembly of it at its next sitting;

(6) Indians to be trained for and freely admitted to all arms of the defence forces;

(7) recruitment and other conditions of All India services should be determined by the
Government of India through a Public Service Commission;

(8) residual functions should vest in the Central Go-vernment.

(9) The Council of the Secretary of State for India should be abolished.

(10) Strength of legislative bodies to•be increased with wider and lower franchise; adequate
provision for the election of backward, depressed and labouring classes and equal women franchise.

179
Finally a demand was made that without delay a Com-mission should be appointed to report on the
proposals made by the Liberals.

B. S. Kamat, a Liberal leader from Poona, while support-ing the resolution, analysed the conditions
which the Govern-ment expected Indians to comply with before they would think of making any sort
of political advance. They were these:

(1) There should be fair and reasonable chance of agreement between Indians of various
sections of Opinion.

(2) There should be a visible sign of goodwill and cooperation to work the scheme.

(3) Whether the present was a favourable time to place this matter before a Royal Commission
and whether the amount of data was sufficient to convince the Royal Commission that India was in
need of political advance.

In regard to the first, Kamat held that there was absolute unanimity as to what Indians wanted. This
was clear from the nature of evidence tendered by different witnesses before the Reform Enquiry
Committee. The general skeleton of the scheme, claimed Kamat, as framed by the Liberals was
accepted by the leaders of the Swarajist Party in the Legislative Assembly. It was supported there by
Sir Sivaswami Iyer on behalf of the Liberals.

As regards the second point, Kamat rightly observed that when the Liberals were in power they gave
unstinted cooperation so the Government. Then after the entry of the Swarajists into the Councils,
Patel’s accep

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 293

Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution, 1926, Vol. II,, p. 208.

tance of speakership was unmistakable sign of cooperation.

In respect of the third condition, Kamat said, that he was not afraid of the adverse verdict of the
Commission at the present political atmosphere of the country. Then, the report of the Reforms
Enquiry Committee provided sufficient data to convince an impartial tribunal to justify the Indian
demand.

Before an outline of the growth of other parties is given on the occasion of the 3rd election under
dyarchy, a word may be said about the “Liberal” influence in the U.P. during the second Council.

Liberal Activities in the U.P. (1923-26): In the U.P. the Liberals, who were so prominent in the first
Council, had never as a Party recovered from their rejection by the electorate in 1923. They now
sailed under nationalist colours and relied on Hindu Sabha support. But with the help of Chintamani
and his ‘Leader’, the old Liberal Party appeared under the name of the Nationalist Party. It was
joined by a number of landlords also. Attempts to enlist Mohammedans, however, failed.
Chintamani’s vehement utterances eclipsed Swarajist leaders and made strong appeal to the
members of that party. In fact, the differences between the Swarajists and Chintamani’s Party were
reduced to a minimum in the U. P. for the leader of the Swarajist Party, Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant,
“was formerly a Liberal and was still so by temperament and conviction”‘ and Chintamani’s powerful

180
personality ,appealed to all nationalist Hindus. This is why there should be little wonder when we
find that when they returned to the Council on March 29, 1926 after their walk-out of the Council on
March 11, 1926, three of the Swarajists served on the Select Committee of the Agra Tenancy Bill and
three on the Select Committee

1 Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution, 1926,

of the Land Revenue Bill. The Swarajist leader also served on the Select Committee of the District
Board Primary Education Bill. This bill could become an act only with the help of Swarajists. Pandit
Govind Ballabh in his speech on that occasion called it an irony of fate that Swarajists, who had
entered to wreck the constitution, were present to insure the passage of the Bill.’

The Final Elections under Dyarchy (1926): By the time the third elections (November 1926) under
dyarchy came, a number of other political parties had sprung up under different names and with
different aims.

The Liberals, who stood for working the constitution, professed a national creed. The Hindu
Mahasabhites under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai, Pandit Malaviya and Jayakar believed in
cooperation with the Government but wanted to safeguard the interests of the Hindu Community.
The Justice Party of Madras consisted of non-Brahmins and also stood for working the constitution
and safeguarding non-Brahmin interests. The Independent Party, which under the leadership of
Jinnah had played an important part in the previous Assembly and which refused to identify itself
either with the Justice Party or the Swarajist Party and which included the Liberals and Home rulers,
shrank on account of its inferior organisation. The Swarajists returned in larger numbers with the
declaration of determined opposition to every activity, governmental or other, that might impede
the Nation’s progress towards Swaraj.

The Swarajist Party scored a brilliant win in Madras and in the Legislative Assembly they claimd to
have 38 out of a total of 104 elected members and in all other Provincial Councils they formed the
largest single party, but they definitely lost ground on the whole both in the Legislative Assembly
and in the Provincial Councils. In the Legislative

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 295

Assembly* they claimed to have 40 out of a total of 104 elected members but on no occasion did
they take 40 votes into the lobby, not even for a division on the Ratio Bill. The rest of the elected
members were divided among the Moham-medans, Responsive-Cooperators, Independents, Hindu
Mahasabhites and a few others without a party label. The Liberals ceased as an organised party
inside the legislatures, but as a Federation outside the legislatures, they existed as a very influential
body of political opinion.

The fact of the matter is that the Liberals had a poor following among the masses. Further, they had
alienated both the intellectuals and the masses by seemingly cooperating with the Government in its
policy of repression.

181
One of the keenest public controversies at this time was that over the exchange ratio. What should
be the value of the rupee in terms of the pound --16d. or 18d.? The Royal Currency Commission inter
alia recommended the stabilization of the exchange at 18d. The case for the 16d. ratio was
supported with great skill by Purshottam Das Thakur Das in his minute of dissent. On the other hand,
the case for the 18d. ratio was sponsored by the majority of the Royal Commission and defended by
Sir Basil Blackett. Sir Siva-swami favoured the higher rate of exchange. Chintamani favoured the 16d.
ratio. The Liberals thus differed over the

• The strength of the parties in the Central Assembly as a result of Nov., 1926 election is given
below:—

Swarajists

Nationalists

Europeans •• •• ••

Central Muslim Party and Non-party

%--

Independents .

Nominated .

Officials. .

Others .

Total .. 1

J. Coatman’s India in 1928-29. Appetrdix VI, p. 394.

question. This does credit to their intellectual integrity but speaks against their political solidarity.

Liberal Boycott of the Simon Commission: According to section 84A of the Government of India Act
of 1919, the Statutory Commission was to be appointed in 1929, but it was ante-dated by two years.
Chintamani refused to believe that this was done in deference to Indian public opinion.’ In the
opinion of Setalvad, the object of Lord Birkenhead and the Conservative Government then in power
was not to leave the Commission to be appointed by the Labour Government, which it was felt
would almost certainly come soon into power. The other object was to disintegrate the Swarajist
Party.2 Withal these motives, even the Tories could not long remain indifferent to the united wish of
all Parties in India, since even the Liberals had deserted dyarchy as useless.

The Simon Commission was appointed to enquire into the working of the Act of 1919 and to make
recommendations for future constitutional advance. It was composed of purely British members of
Parliament to the exclusion of all Indians. Such a composition evoked universal dis-satisfaction and
people of all shades of political opinion in India condemned it in unequivocal language. The

182
appointment of this Commission was a direct affront to the Indian Liberals. From the Public Service
Commission of 1886 to the Indian Sandhurst Committee of 1925, Liberals sat almost on all of them
and had extended full cooperation to the

1 Chintamani’s speech Report: N.L.F. Bombay, 1927 p. 65.

2 Setalvad’s Recollections and Reflections, p. 341.

In support of his view, Setalvad has quoted Lord Birkenhead’s private letter to Lord Reading dated
Dec. 10, 1925, “I always had it plainly in mind that we could not afford to run the slightest risk that
the nomination of 1928 should be in the hands of our successors. You can readily imagine what kind
of a Commission in its personnel need have been appointed by Col. Wedgewood and his friends. I
should therefore, like to receive your advice if at any moment you discern an opportunity for making
this a useful bargain counter or for further distintegrating the Swarajist Party.”

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 297

Government for Which they had been subjected to public approbrium and obloquy. Yet, they also
had been distrusted and ignored in this important matter.

The All-White Commission brought the Liberals into the lime-light again after a temporary eclipse.
They combated forcefully Birkenhead’s argument that the framers of the original Act had
contemplated a Parliamentary Commission and asked Lord Chelmsford to bear him out, which the
latter did.’ Sir Tej observed, “it was only fair to India that this intention which was so obvious to the
framers should have been made equally obvious at that time to Indians also.”2 Sivaswami Aiyer
declared that “persons who are worst qualified to interpret a statute are those who frame the
statute.”‘ Even if the statute in question had so contemplated, they could have included two Indian
Members of the Parliament, Lord Sinha and Saklatwala.4

In the same speech Lord Birkenhead said that a mixed Commission was not expected to give a
unanimous report. To this Sir Tej answered that such arguments gave an impetus to class-
consciousness and stimulated differences. Sir Sivaswami further pointed out that there had been
large Commissions, such as the MacDonald Commission and that large numbers should not be a
reason not to give a Commission a representative character.5

It was further argued that there would be dissentient reports and the Parliament would not be able
to judge between them; it was a poor compliment, said Sivaswami, to the capacity of Parliament.°
Again, it was said that the suc

Speech of Lord Birkenhead and Chelmsford in the House of Lords (India-1927-28. Appendix), pp.
397-416.

2 Presidential Address, N. L. F. Bombay, 1927, p. 13.

P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer’s speech on a resolution regarding the Statutory Commission, N.L.F., 1927, p.
37.

4 Setalvad: Recollections and Reflections, p. 342.

183
5 Resolution regarding Commission by Sivaswami, Bombay,

1927, p. 38.

p. 38.

cess of the British nation in working their constitution had been ascribed by a great political writer to
the sound stupidity of the British people, Sivaswami doubted whether in this case the stupidity of
Parliament was not of the unsound type.’

The minority argument of Birkenhead was dismissed on the ground that they were doing nothing for
the minorities in South Africa= and that minorities in Canada proved no hurdle in their political
emancipation.3

To the argument that Legislatures would appoint subordinate committees to collaborate with the
Simon Seven, Chintamani disillusioned those who entertained some hope on this score by quoting
from the speech of Ramsay MacDonald who said, “How can we recognise any committee that is not
set up by ourselves?”‘ The position of those committees, observed Chintamani, would be like the
position of the co-opted members of the Southborough Committees. “I was seated”, said he, “by the
side of the Dacca members and I was allowed to cross-examine the Secretaries to Government and
other witnesses But when the examination ....was over the whole business for me. .. was to take my
ticket from Lucknow to Allahabad.”5

Sir Tej quoted Colonel Wedgwood’s letter to Lala Lajpat Rai in defence of the Liberal Party’s position
for boycott of the Simon Commission, wherein it was stated: “Petitioning for little scraps of liberty is
a dirty business, and there has been too much of it....I was always against noncooperation . .. But
this Commission does not require

1 Resolution regarding Commission by Sivaswami, N.L.F. Bombay, 1927, p. 39.

2 Hirdayanath Kunzru’s speech on the above resolution, pp. 50-54.

3 Sir Tej: Presidential Address, N. L. F., 1927.

* Ramsay Macdonald’s speech in Parliament (Appendix to Coat-man’s Report—India in 1927-28), pp.

421.

3 Chintamani’s speech on Resolution regarding Commission, 1927, p. 71,

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 299

your help. There is no need to stand in the witness box and be cross-examined by persons of no
great importance who have not shown any great interest in your views or feelings.”‘ They had to
boycott the Commission because ‘even a worm must sometimes turn.’2

By this resolution the Liberal Party committed itself not to do anything with the Commission at any
stage or in any form. Sir P. S. SivasWami Aiyer and Sir Tej signed the manifesto with distinguished
leaders of other parties signifying dissatisfaction at an All-White Commission. On Dec. 3, 1927, in a

184
meeting of the citizens of Bombay in the Sir Cowasji Jehangir Hall under the Chairmanship of Sir C.
Setalvad, Sir V. N. Chandavarkar and Mr. Bhulabhai Desai moved resolutions to condemn the
composition of the Com-mission.

Unwelcome and Police-protected Simon Seven were greeted with shouts of ‘Simon Go Back’
everywhere. The most unfortunate clash between the demonstrators and the Police occurred at
Lahore when Lala Lajpat Rai was severely injured by the Police. Chintamani later charged the
Government with the murder of Lajpat Rai.’ Immediately after the death of Lalaji in 1928, he
charged the Government with “unresponsiveness” and “irresponsibility” in its failure “to set up an
independent, expert enquiry to ascertain what connection there was between the conduct of their
matchless police and the Lalaji’s death soon after.”‘

The Government’s Blunder and its Results: It appears to be short-sightedness of the Tory
Government to have appointed a purely White-Commission. They miscalcu-lated the forces at work
in India. By their suspicion of the Liberals, they alienated the sympathies of the most practical,

Presidential Address—Sir Tej, N.L.F., 1927, p. 26. 2 Ibid., p. 41.

C. Y. Chintamani: Indian Politics sitace Mutiny, p. 125. 4 Report N.L.F., Allahabad, 19.28, p. 4.

seasoned and balanced statesmen of the country. The result was that the Liberals joined hands with
the Congress in the ‘All Parties Conference’ to work for Swaraj. Had there been a few Liberals on the
Commission of the calibre of Sivaswami or Sapru, the whole course of Indian politics there-after
might conceivably have been different. However, it was of good augury for the national cause that
the two major parties now joined hands to disprove the unjust accusation that the Liberals were
unpatriotic.

All Parties Conference and Change in the Liberal Out-look: What was the motif of this Conference?
The rout of the Liberals at the elections of 1926 denied them the forum suited to their genius. The
Swarajists, who dominated the Congress, had in essence accepted the Liberal programme. The
Responsivists, the Independents, and the Communal Organisations were not opposed to the Liberal
scheme of Council-entry. The programme of non-cooperation, which had been an eye-sore to the
Liberals, had been sus-pended. The author of the non-cooperation movement, Gandhiji, had
confined himself to the Sabarmati Ashram and the constructive programme of the Congress letting
younger politicians have a free play and realize the futility of their method for themselves. It was
high-time for men of different shades of opinion to put their heads together. Lord Birkenhead’s
nomination of a purely White Commission to the exclusion of all Indians clinched the issue. The
decision betrayed a deplorable distrust even of those who had faced public odium and political
effacement for their belief in cooperation with the Government. Even the tallest among them were
deemed to be unfit to sit on this sacrosanct Commission on terms of equality with the Whites!

Furthermore, the communal tangle had been agitating equally the minds of the Liberals since the
days of Gokhale and they felt much concerned to explore a modus vivendi to resolve it in
collabcfration with other parties. To cap all

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 301

185
there was the challenge of Lord Birkenhead who said on the occasion of the announcement of the
Statutory Commission that during his regime of three years as Secretary of State he had twice
invited critics in India to come out with their own suggestions for a constitution. All Indian Leaders
were in duty bound to sit together to produce a constitution which might receive the approval of all
interests in India.

Accordingly, both the Congress and the Liberal Federation passed resolutions in their annual
sessions in 1927 to devise means for the removal of the differences between the two communities
and to hammer out a constitution acceptable to both. Some prominent Muslim leaders had met in
Delhi on March 20, 1927 and brought forth certain proposals as the condition precedent to the
acceptance of joint electorates. Later on, the Muslim League met in Calcutta and expressed the
same anxiety. In such a favourable atmosphere, the Working Committee of the Congress summoned
the All Parties Conference, at Delhi in February and March, 1928. It appointed a Committee
consisting of Motilal Nehru, as chairman and Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and N. M. Joshi—the two Liberals
among others—as members. The work of the committee was, in the main, threefold:—

(1) To determine the constitutional goal of the country.

(2) Adjustment of Hindu-Muslim and Sikhs’ claims in the future constitution of the coun-try.

(3) To frame the outlines of the future Consti-tution.

The first point formed the issue between the Congress and the Liberals—one wedded to complete
independence and the other pledged to Dominion Status. Dominion Status was proposed by the
Committee as the basis of the Indian Constitution. For “on any

A HISTORY OP THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

higher ground a general agreement • was not obtain-able.”‘

In regard to the second question, the Report recom-mended that “there shall be joint mixed
electorates throughout India,” as separate electorates were bad for the growth of a national spirit
and “still worse for a minority community. They make majority wholly independent of the minority
and its votes are wholly usually hostile to it.”2 The only communal safeguard recommended was the
reservation of seats only for the Muslims in strict proportion to the size of their community. When
on December 22, 1928, the Report was presented before the All Parties Conference with Dr. Ansari
in the chair, Jinnah, on behalf of the All India Muslim League, moved a nuttier of amendments to the
report. Three of his amendments—the first, reservation of one-third of elected seats to Muslims in
the Central Le-gislature, the second, reservation of seats for Musalinans on a population basis in the
Punjab and Bengal in the event of adult franchise not being established; the third, regarding the
residuary powers being vested in the provinces were negatived, but the Conference accepted his
fourth amendment to the effect that no amendment to the Constitution could be made unless it was
first passed in both the Houses....separately by a majority of 4/5 and was approved by a similar
majority of both the Houses in Joint session. Sir Tej advised the Conference to approve the
suggestions of Jinnah pointing, “ ....I would like you to picture Mr. Jinnah....as a spoilt child. If he is a
spoilt child, a naughty child, I am prepared to say, give him what he

186
All Parties Conference, 1928—Report Committee published by the General Secretary, Allahabad, 2nd
Ed., 27th August, 1928, p• 24.

2 Ibid., p. 80.

1 Quoted by C. Setalvad in Recollections and Reflections, p. 350.

2 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. II, pp. 035-36.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 303

wants... .I am not going to ask him to be reasonable but we must, as practical statesmen, try to solve
the problem and not be misled by arithmetical figures.”‘ The sane and timely advice of Sir Tej was
not heeded to by statesmen like Jayakar who represented the Hindu view. The Muslim League was
divided into two factions—one under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah who was still at heart a nationalist
and the other under the Ali brothers who were swayed by communal passions. Dis-satisfaction at
the Nehru Report narrowed the gulf between the two groups of the League which was bridged over
at the Round Table Conference in 1930.

As regards the Swaraj Constitution, India was to be a Commonwealth including the Indian States on
certain conditions. It envisaged direct elections by adult suffrage and made declaration of
Fundamental Rights. It laid the provision for a secular state, embodied the substance of all national
demands hitherto made on all national platforms plus a frame-work under which they could be
fitted in. It was modestly substantial for the occasion and its approach was highly politic and
conciliatory in spirit. Mahatma Gandhi appreciated the Nehru Report and paid a special tribute to
the Liberals saying, “The Liberals led by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru lent a weight to the Conference which
it would otherwise have lacked. I join Mrs. Besant in her wish that they would re-enter the national
organisation. They need not lose their identity even as the Hindu and Musalman organisations do
not lose theirs.”‘ This invitation from Gandhiji was indicative of a change in the Liberal outlook.

The Liberals and the Nehru Report: The Liberals also welcomed the Nehru Report. Setalvad in his
presi-dential address observed in 1929 that the “Report. ...is entitled to a high place among state
documents dealing with topics of such importance, by its fairness, clear and logical thinking, restraint
and moderation and commendable statesmanship.’ He approved of the decision of the Nehru
Report in regard to the abolition of separate electorates but did not approve of adult franchise at
that stage. By a separate resolution, the Federation accorded its general support to the Report in
respect of its decision regarding minorities.2

Irwin Declaration: The blunder committed by the Tories was now set right by the Labour
Government that came into office on October 7. 1929: and, even before the Simon Commission had
concluded its work, a famous Decla-ration was made by Lord Irwin on October 31. 1929:

“In view of the doubts which have been expressed

both in Britain and India regarding the interpretation

to he placed on the intentions of the British Govern

187
ment in enacting the Statute of 1919, I am authorised

on behalf of His Majesty’s Government to state clearly

that, in their judgment, it is implicit in the Declaration

of 1917 that the natural issue of India’s progress as there

contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion Status.”2

Liberal Reactions: For achieving this, the British Go-vernment now decided to call Indian statesmen
to a Round Table Conference in London. The Liberals were anxious for such an opportunity and Sir
Pheroz said, “I feel not the slightest hesitation in saying that India will commit a very grave blunder if
she rejects the offer.” But they refused to

1 Stelvad—Address, N.L.F., Allahabad, 1929, p. 13.

3 Ibid. Pp. 40-41.

3 Banerjee’s Indian Constitutional Documents, p. 177.

II Presidential Address by Pheroz Sethna, N.L.F. Madras, 1929, p.

28.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 305

agree to take part. in the Conference if its terms of reference did not include the immediate
attainment of Dominion Status.

The Viceregal announcement raised a storm. The Congress was not in favour of an unconditional
acceptance of the offer. A leaders’ conference met at President Patel’s residence. It deliberated
upon Gandhiji’s draft substantially modified by suggestions from Sir Tej. The agreed statement
expressed itself in favour of cooperation with His Majesty’s Government in their effort to evolve a
dominion constitution but the leaders demanded certain points to be made clear to inspire trust and
ensure confidence. Among the conditions to be fulfilled were: all discussions at the pro-posed
Conference were to be on the basis of Dominion Status; all political prisoners were to be released
and henceforth the Government of India was to be carried on, as far as possible, on the lines of a
Dominion Government. It was another victory of the national leaders that they could unite
themselves in the national demand. Among the signatories to the manifesto the names of the two
great Liebral leaders, Sapru and Dr. Besant, were prominent, although at the back of the agreement
it was implied that in the case of the Congress, the offer was open till the date of the next Congress
and in case of the Liberals it could be demanded as a maximum, but refusal was not to be followed
by non-cooperation.

The reasons why the Liberals felt driven to the idea of a Round Table Conference were that it was
considered by them to be a landmark in Indian politics, a decided advance over the earlier joint
Parliamentary Committees, that various political parties and interests of the country should sit
together on terms of equality with the Representatives of His Majesty’s Government. Sir Tej agreed

188
that Dominion Status should be established all at once, but on the point that no definite promise for
the inauguration of Dominion Status had been made he argued that on constitutional

F. 39

grounds such a promise was impossible, as it would have meant over-riding the supremacy of the
Parliament. He, however, advised the rulers immediately to summon the Conference so as to enable
the people’s mind to settle down on these great problems.’

The Lahore Congress of 1929 declined to join the Con-ference and authorized the A.I.C.C. to launch
upon a pro-gramme of Civil Disobedience. On January 26, 1930, the Congress Working Committee
adopted the Independence Resolution.

The Liberal Party regretted the decision of the Congress under the leadership of Gandhiji not only
not to go to the Round Table Conference but to offer Civil Disobedience on the issue. The Liberals
apprehended that such a move was bound to lead to bloodshed, turmoil and all sorts of trouble in
the country. One thing prophetic was said by Setalvad on this occasion to which every one of us is a
witness these clays. He said, “ ....if you inculcate in the minds of the younger generation, the idea of
direct action, the idea of disobeying laws, what will happen to your Swaraj when you get it?2

The Liberals felt that Lord Irwin and Wedgewood had made the Announcement of October 31 to
satisfy mostly the Congress Party, for the demand for “a representative Round ‘Table Conference”
was made by Motilal Nehru in his amendment to the resolution tabled by Dewan Bahadur T.
Rangachariar in 1924. Since then the Swarajists had repeated it often. Now when it came within
their reach they went back upon their word. In such a crisis, it became incumbent on the Liberal
Party to say to those British friends, “For Heaven’s sake, go ahead with your policy; if the Congress
has failed you, there are others in this country,

Sir Tej’s speech on resolution regarding R.T•C., N.L.F., Madras 1929, p. 54.

Setalvad’s speech on the same resolution, Ibid., p. 58.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 307

equally patriotic, trust them and you will not be deceived.”‘ The Liberal Party was called upon to
take that position and to do the work of the hour.

The famous Dandi march of Mahatma Gandhi and the Salt Satyagrah were started in March 1930. It
was in such an atmosphere of tension that the Viceroy consulted Liberals like Sapru, Setalvad and
other leaders like Jayakar and dis-cussed with them the scheme of the proposed Round Table
Conference. The Liberals pressed the Viceroy to announce an early date for the Round Table
Conference. So on May 12, 1930, Lord Irwin made a statement that, “neither my Government, nor
His Majesty’s Government will be deflected by these unhappy events from our firm determination to
abide by the policy I was privileged to announce in November last.” The Liberals along with others
accepted the invitation to the Round Table Conference.

189
The Round Table Conferences: The First Confer-ence: Leaving the country on fire, thirteen Liberals*
sailed for England in September and October, 1930. C. Y. Chintamani declined to call them
‘delegates’ for “neither the Federation nor its Council was given a chance of at least making
recommendations.”2 They had no mandate for their guidance to facilitate concerted action on vital
questions. On Nov. 12, 1930, the Conference was inaugurated by His Majesty the King-Emperor who
rightly emphasized the importance of the CIonference in that “never before have British Indian
Statesmen and Rulers of Indian States met

1 Rt. Hon’ble V. S. Srinivas Sastri’s speech on resolution regard. ing the acceptance of the
Announcement of the Viceroy; N.L.F., Madras, 1929, p. 70.

• Liberal Delegates:—J. N. Basu, C. Y. Chintamani, Sir Cowasji jehangir, N. M. Joshi, P. C. Mitter, H. P.

Modi, N. N. Law, Ram Chandra Rao, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Rt. Hon. Srinivas Sastri, Sir Chimanlal
Setalvad, Sir Pheroz Sethna, Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyer.

‘Presidential Address by C. Y. Chintamanif 1117111baY•

1931, p. 34.

....to discuss the future system of Government for India.”‘ Neither the King nor the British Prime
Minister, however. made any mention of Dominion Status in their speeches. But Srinivas Sastri did
not fail to remark even at this initial stage two things: one was the attainment of Dominion Status as
contemplated in the Declaration of August 1917 and the other was “the enjoyment of as large a
degree of management of her own affairs as could be shown to be compatible with the necessity of
making provision for those matters in regard to which she was not in a position to assume respon-
sibility.”

The Prime Minister proposed the appointment of a

Committee to advise the Conference on the conduct of busi

ness and the resolution was carried unanimously. Sapru and

Sastri were appointed members of the Business Committee. India’s Case Sponsored by Sapru in the
Plenary Session:

In the Plenary Session a general discussion was held whether

the future constitution of India should be on a federal or

unitary basis. Sir Tej, putting forward India’s case, said:8

“An anxious restless nation is watching you ....the whole of British Statesmanship is on trial.” “....in
the midst of gibes and ridicules of our countrymen.... we have come.... to argue with you.... to make
ourselves heard, but also to hear you He said that during the last ten years India had made
tremendous progress. Though he realized, he said, the grave dangers of the Civil Disobedience
Movement, he also realised what it really represented. It should not be viewed from the
administrative point only. Then he deplored the nature of British rule in India, which he

190
characterised as the sovereignty of half a dozen men in England and half a dozen men in India. He
asked the

Proceedings—I.R.T.C., p. 11.

2 Ibid., p. 17 (Reference to letter of Lord Irwin tc) Mt. Jaykar). $ Ibid., pp. gl-g8,

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 309

Britons not to be startled by the name of Dominion Status, as they had not done so in case of
Canada in 1865, of Australia in 1900, and of South Africa in 1909. He said that India was determined
to achieve a status of equality with these other three members of the British Commonwealth.

In respect of Federation, Sapru said that he was a strong believer in the federal form of government
for three reasons: firstly, the Indian States would furnish a stabilizing factor in our constitution;
secondly, the process of unification would begin at once; and thirdly, in regard to defence, it would
provide opportunities for practical experience.

In regard to Commerce, he assured the Europeans that they would have the same rights as Indians
had. With regard to the army he said, “By all means keep it in the hands of the Viceroy. Let him
exercise control over the Army through the Commander-in-Chief or through a minister whom he
may appoint.

In the Plenary Session, Sir Tej performed the same duty as Gandhiji did at the second Conference.
The Liberals fully represented the national viewpoint. A study of their speeches at its various
deliberations reveals the width of their vision and the depth of their patriotism. At Sapru’s request
the Princes rose to the occasion and registered their willingness, though their terms could not be
called very fair. Other parties, however, could not rise above sectional interests.

Lord Peel, representing the Conservative Party said,

....while we are united on the goal, we may.. . . differ as to the pace or rapidity with which we may
attain that goal.”‘ Lord Reading said, “Let me say that we Liberals... . have

I Ibid., p. 58— (Proceedings of I. R. T. C.,•p- 58).

no desire . . . no intention—to deviate from the promises made.”

Indian Liberals did not fail to observe how the Dominion Status issue was cleverly evaded by British
statesmen and how they manoeuvred to entangle the Indian delegates in the issue of federation.
But in presenting the nationalist case they showed no hesitation. The Congress could have hardly
done better. Sapru implored the Parliament to rise superior to the narrow administrative view and
to take a broad and statesmanlike view of Indian unrest. Sastri assured the Conference, “Believe me,
they (Congress leaders) are not hereditary criminals; they are not savage barbarian hordes. They are
men of cuture, men of honour, .. .. They are our kinsmen both in spirit and by blood. It is a sense of
political grievance that has placed them in this position

191
. Remove that discontent and you will find them alongside you.”‘ Setalvad warned them, “You
cannot rule 320 million people continuously by force and by military power.”3 Chintamani exhorted
the audience, “No longer should the Government of India be main-tained as what it has been
called—a despotism of despatch boxes tampered by the occasional loss of keys. No longer should
red tape be King and sealing wax Minister.”4 He deplored, “A system which can be maintained only
by casting into jail two such noble beings as Mahatma Gandhi and Madan Mohan Malaviya is a
doomed system.”

In regard to economic policy, the Liberals declared that it could never be regulated by foreigners.
They stressed that India’s poverty being not an opinion but a fact, until pressure on agriculture was
lightened and a large number

Proceedings—I.R.T.C., p. 114. 2 Ibid., pp. 142-43.

p. 156.

4 Ibid., p. 163.

Ibid., p. 163.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 311

was absorbed in industries, there was no hope for India. Mody declared that unless India was able to
build up a vigorous industrial system,’ unless she was permitted to make her experiments in her own
way, by her own people and for her own good in the sphere of her trade and fiscal manage-ment,2
no progress would be made by her.

Joshi, pioneer of the Labour movement, demanded that self-governing India should so frame her
constitution as to contain a declaration of fundamental rights for workers; secondly, it should be
founded upon universal adult suffrage; thirdly, the central or federal Government should always
retain to itself the power of labour legislation.2

The Plenary Session revealed that the demand for the immediate establishment of Dominion Status
was worthily sponsored by the Liberals and at least in this they were sup-ported by all Indian
delegates. After it, the Conference went into nine Committees.* These Committees submitted their
reports to the whole Conference in the second week of January 1931. On 16th and 19th January in
the Final Plenary Session a debate was held on the reports of the sub-committees and the work of R.
T. C. was assessed.

Achievements of the R. T. C. from the viewpoint of the Lierals: Looked at from the viewpoint of the
Liberals the Conference had not been a failure. Sapru said at the fag-end of the Conference that the
people who said that “we were going on a fools’ errand” were not right. In his opinion, “There are
three central ideas which have emerged from the Conference, namely, Indian Federation,
responsibility at the centre and preparation for self-defence.”4 He was not alarmed by the proposed
safeguards also because “they

1 Proceedings of I.R.T.C., p. 147.

192
2 Ibid., p. 110.

Ibid., p. 103.

Federal Structure, provincial constitution, minorities, Burma, N.-W. Frontier Province, Franchise,
Defence, Services and Sind.

4 Proceedings of I.R.T.C., p. 471. •

are really intended in the interests of responsible government that we are establishing at the centre
and not to strengthen the hands of English control over us.”1

Federation: The idea of a Federation was now mooted for the first time. Both the Statutory
Commission and the Government of India’s Despatch had indicated that the creation of a Federation
was a remote idea, but due to the change in the attitude of the Princes the idea of a federation
began to loom large now.

In the opinion of the Liberal Party,* the Secretary of State should in future be shorn of a good deal of
his glory’ and his powers were to be limited to Crown subjects and the India Council should be
abolished.* The Governor-General would act like his prototype in the Dominion.5 But for some time
to come he would be in possession of emergency powers.* Executive Government would not be
turned out of office except by a certain prescribed majority.’ The connection of the States with the
Government of India should not suffer any abrupt rupture, The question of Paramountcy should be
discussed on its merits and not by any manipulation.*

In the Federal Legislature there should be two Houses—a Lower House consisting of 300 members
including a sufficient number of States’ representatives and an tipper House of representatives to be
elected on an Indirect basis.* Some of these suggestions were bodily adopted by the Sub-Corn

1 Proceedings of I.R.T.C., p. 471.

· On the Federal Sub-structure Committee there were four Liberals: Sapru, Sastri, Jayakar and
Rarnaswami.

2 & Sapru’s speech, Proceedings of Sub-committee of Federal Structure, p. 582.

4 & Ibid., p. 583.

· Sastri’s speech, Ibid., p. 443; Jayakar’s speech, Ibid., p. 463; Sapru’s speech, Ibid., p. 584.

Sapru’s speech, Ibid., 589.

8 Proceedings of Sub-Committee of Federal Structure, Sastri’s Speech, p. 443.

p. 589.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

mittee, such as the reserved powers of the Governor-General’s Cabinet by two-thirds’ majority of
the two Houses, etc. H. P. Mody posited, “Whether a federal system is evolved or not, India must
have a complete measure of autonomy at

193
the centre as the circumstances permit.”

it-

Chintamani’s View: In this connection Chtntamani

observed:

that a United States of India was worth achieving at some sacrifice but the view that any federation,
be it no better than a confederation, was better than any unitary government was not acceptable to
him. The mere word federation had no fascination for him in his individual capacity, though from the
presidential chair, he said that he was a supporter of the federal idea and was ready to make large
allowances for the susceptibilities of the Princes, but he declined “to be content with the shadowy
lineaments of a soi-distant federation and to forego the substance of responsible government for
British India.” He refused to agree to the representatives of the states in the popular chamber of the
Federal Legislature being nominees of the Princes and that the Federal Executive should be
responsible to both Houses of Legislature. He refused to agree to the States’ members of the
legislature taking part in subjects pertaining to British India and British Indians not being allowed any
voice in subjects exclusively under the control of States.’

Safeguards: The Prime Minister, expressing his detestation for the word ‘safeguards’ in politics,
showed his helplessness in avoiding three categories of safeguards in the future constitution: viz., (i)
reserved powers given to the Governors, the Governor-General and the Crown, (ii) safeguards
relating to finance, the Services and some other

Report N.L.F. Bombay, 1931, pp. 43-46. F.

••

matters and (iii) those relating to the rights of the Commu-nities so that they might come to a
settlement among themselves.’ Lord Peel, on behalf of the Conservatives, promised to accord his
Party’s assent to a new constitution, if safeguards could be made effective with care and goodwill.’
Lord Reading also expressed the Liberal Party’s definite support of the policy conferring
responsibility at the Centre, provided the safeguards were adequate.’

Chintamani did not hold the same opinion on these safeguards as Sir Tej or Sastri. He expressed his
readiness for accommodation if he was given the substance of Dominion Status or else he would cry
halt if in the name of safety or security proposals of reservations and safeguards were pressed which
reduced its value and paved the way for difficulties.*

Provincial Governments: Provinces were to be granted autonomy. ‘The sub-committee on Provincial

Constitution provided special and emergency powers for Governors. In Chintamani’s opinion they
would enable the Governor to do what he might think to be right and necessary independently of or
in opposition to his Government in the name of safety and tranquillity of the province. In regard to
the second chambers in some provinces, Chintamani regarded them as unnecessary and
undesirable.’

194
The North-West Frontier Province was to be treated as a separate province like the other provinces.
It was proposed that it should continue to receive subventions from the Centre, but the Central
Government should not interfere in the affairs of the province. In Chintamani’s opinion
“administrative autonomy cannot co-exist with financial dependence.”‘

Proceedings of 1.R•T.C.—Chairman’s remarks—pp. 478-479. 2 Ibid., p. 427—Speech of Lord Peel.

Ibid., p. 465.

4 Chintamani’s Presidential Address, N.L.F

62-63. Bombay, 1931, pp.

lbid., p. 65. Ibid., p. 68.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 315

Sind was separated from Bombay Presidency. Liberals did not oppose the move.

Franchise: Provincial autonomy brought with it the question of the broadening of the franchise and
it was re-commended that a sub-committee should be appointed to frame a plan for the immediate
increase in representation of not less than 10% and not more than 25% of the total population. Joshi
and Srinivas Sastri and a few others regarded these figures as inadequate. Other Liberal leaders
signified their assent to the proposals of the Committee because adult suffrage was considered to be
premature on ‘practical grounds’. The Committee did not discuss the question of franchise with
regard to the Federal Legislature.

Defence: In regard to this subject, the Liberals always took a very dispassionate view. They had
consistently held the view that the country was not in a position to assume control over the Defence
of the country. But they urged that a Committee of experts should report upon the fixation of a
minimum amount of expenditure on Defence during a fixed term. It should be a charge on the
Government of India and made available to the Governor-General without a vote of the Assembly. In
the event of war, the Governor-General could appropriate additional amounts without prior
reference to the Assembly. They also insisted that the army should be Indianized as soon as possible
and adequate facilities should be provided for the military training of Indians.

Sir Tej almost exulted over the recommendation that it was acknowledged that Indians were entitled
to have an Indian Sandhurst to train candidates for Commissions in all arms of the India Defence
Service. He deemed it no small gain. Even the Skeen Committee failed to achieve this. Chintamani
did not seem to see eye to eye with Sapru and called the recommendations as “disappointing”. He
ob-jected to the position of the Committee of Imperig Defence

body responsible to examine all the problems relating to Defence.’ He could tolerate it for the
transitory period, not for all times,2 for no Dominion allowed it a determining voice in the question
of political principle relating to Defence.

195
Services: The Sub-Committee on the Services recommended that due provision should be made in
the new constitution for the rights and safeguards of the existing members of the Services. In the
case of the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Police Service, the majority of the sub-committee
opined that they should continue to be recruited on an All India basis and should continue to enjoy
their present rights and emoluments. In future, the recruiting and the controlling authority should
be the Government of India. A provision was to be made for the appointment of Public Service
Commissions in the Provinces and at the Centre. It was also recommended that community, caste
and creed should be no bar for promotion. Sir Gowasji Jehangir seemed to be completely satisfied
with the deliberations of the sub-committee on the Services and in the plenary session he affirmed
that “the Sub-Committee have given serious and sympathetic consideration to the question”.3 In
their resolution on the Services in the Special Liberal Conference in August, 1931, the Liberals also
expressed no particular dissatisfaction at these recommendations. They only demanded that the
judicial services should be recruited from the Bar and that Provincial Governments should have full
control over medical and Police services.

Chintamani’s comment; in Committee of Whole Conference (16th Jan, 1931) on Report of Sub-
Committee (Defence); Proceedings of I.R:TC. p. 377.

2 Ibid., p. 377; see also R.N.L.F, 1931, p. 51.

a Proceedings of I.R:r.C., p. 457.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 317

1 Setalvad: Recollections and Reflections, p. 358.

2 Report of the Sub-Committee on Minorities, I.R•T.C., p. 316.

The Minorities Problem: We learn on Setalvad’s au-thority that an attempt was made by the
Representatives of Hindus (Sapru, Sastri, Setalvad, etc.) and those on the other side (the Aga Khan
and Jinnah) apart from and before the R. T. Conference to settle this question and the Aga Khan
promised that “if you satisfy our demands on all other matters we would agree to joint electorates
with reservation of seats for Muslims”. The Muslims, observes Setalvad, made three demands— (i)
Sind and N.-W. F. to be made separate provinces, (ii) the Muslims should have a reasonable
weightage in the Provincial legislatures and (Hi), one-third of total number of seats be given in the
Central Legislature. “Sapru, Sastri, and myself”, says Setalvad, “would have agreed immediately to
those demands and secured joint electorates. We were seriously disappointed in the attitude of
Jayakar and Moonje.”‘

The Sub-Committee on Minorities acknowledged that. “it was necessary that the new constitution
should contain provisions .... to assure communities that their interests would not be prejudiced;
and that. ...some agreement should be come to between the major communities in order to
facilitate the consideration of the whole question.”‘

Another proposal before the Sub-committee was the inclusion in the constitution of a declaration of
fundamental rights safeguarding the cultural and religious life of the various communities. Mr. Joshi
objected to the omission of all reference to economic rights.

196
It was urged that the number of seats for a minority be in no case less than its proportion in the
population. There were three methods: (i) nomination, (ii) joint electorates, and, (iii) separate
electorates. The first two were rejected. The last question was an old sore. It involved several ques

tions, viz., what should be the amount of communal repre-sentation in the provinces and at the
Centre. The question was further complicated by the demand that the Depressed Classes should he
provided for as a separate Community.

Attempts were made by the thoughtful representatives of both the communities to solve the tangle.
but their efforts proved abortive. Chintamani, as a candid critic, attributed the failure of attempts to
solve the communal problem to British manipulation.’ His comment was, “Me thinks my lady
protesteth too much.” Chintamani quoted Gokhale that “Euclid’s proposition that any two sides of a
triangle are greater than the third was true not less in politics than in geometry.” Chintamani was
glad “to be able to report to the Federation that every Liberal without exception acted
conscientiously in this spirit in the discussions in London and some Liberals laboured strenuously to
promote a settlement which would err on the side of generosity to the Mus-lims. It was not their
fault that they failed.” “There was among the Muslims” remarks Chintamani, “a solidarity produced
by the single device of restricting membership of the Conference to men of one way of thinking.”2
On the question of electorates, Chintamani could make a compromise—either to allow separate
electorates to the numerical proportion of the minority with liberty to contest additional seats
through joint electorate for a period of 10 years; or to allow them to return one-half of the allotted
number of representatives in the first election, one-fourth in the second and none thereafter when
there should be no communal electorates left. All important minorities should receive equal
treatment. On the whole he approved of the solution offered by the Nehru Committee on the
point.3

3 Presidential Address Proceedings—N.L.F., 1931, pp. 70-71. 31 Ibid., p. 71.

1 Ibid., pp. 72-73.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 319

1 Subhas Chandra Bose: The Indian Stru p. 48.

2 Presidential Address, N.L.F., 1931, p. 40.

‘ (Calcutta, 1935),

Subhas Chandra Bose said that the “Liberal politicians felt quite happy when the Prime Minister
announced in his closing speech on January 19, 1931 that they would be given Responsible
Government at the Centre, if they agreed to Safeguards and Federation and they never stopped to
enquire what would remain of real “responsibility’ after Safeguards and Federation had been
conceded.”1 The Libe-rals were divided into two sections. Sapru and Sastri exulted over the success.
Chintamani observed that it was neither a success nor a failure. It was not a success because the
Conference was adjourned before it could record a de-cision on even a solitary question. But the
Conference was not a failure either, for its deliberations were enlightening and useful, it promoted a

197
good understanding between England and Indian statesmen, it created an atmosphere of goodwill
such as had not existed before and it paved the way to easier and surer success at a later date.2

The first R. T. C. was entirely the work of the Liberal Party so far as Nationalist India was concerned.
They spoke for India as a whole and not for any section. But the Con-ference cannot, in Chintamani’s
words, be regarded as a suc-cess because the Liberals had gone there to discuss Dominion Status but
were entangled in the discussion of a Federation. Secondly, they failed to solve the communal
tangle. Thirdly, the phrase responsibility at the Centre with safeguards was of doubtful import. But
the Conference cannot also be called a failure. Its greatest achievement was that Sapru could
persuade Ramsay MacDonald to say, “if Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’s appeal to India as well as to us is
responded to in India and Civil quiet is proclaimed and assured, His Majesty’s Government would
certainly not be backward

in responding to his plea....”1 True to his word, the Premier had Gandhiji and other members of the
Working Committee released even before the Liberals could step on the Indian soil. From one more
viewpoint, the Conference was a success. It focussed various aspects of Swaraj before the
representatives of the two countries. It popularised the cause of India not only in England but in the
world also. Henceforth the work of the Liberal Party was restricted to one of an advisory nature, as a
rule, and to independent decision, only as an exception.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact: Immediately after their return Sapru, Sastri and Jayakar wrought a political
miracle in bringing about an agreement between Gandhiji and the Viceroy known as the Gandhi-
Irwin Pact under which the greatest non-cooperator was won over to cooperate with the ‘Satanic
Government’. Gandhiji agreed to participate in the Second R. 1’. C. to draft a Constitution for India
on the basis of Federation, Responsibility and ‘Safeguards that might be necessary in the interest of
India’. It was a clear triumph of Liberalism and Gandhiji sailed for England, on March 3, 1931.

The Second Round Table Conference: At the second R.T.C. also the Liberals were adequately
represented. Chintamani and Mody did not attend the second session. A general election took place
in the middle of the Conference resulting “in the return of a Parliament of a completely different
complexion from its predecessor.”‘ Labour in the House of Commons was replaced by an
overwhelming Conservative majority. A Coalition Government came into power. MacDonald
remained the Premier, but Wedge-wood Ben was replaced by Samuel Hoare as the Secretary of
State for India.

Proceedings I.R.T.C., p. 480.

2 D. Graham Pale: India in Transition, (Hogarth Press, London, 1932), p. 206.’

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 321

The Second Session did not open with a meeting of the full Conference. • The Federal Structure Sub-
Committee and the Minorities Committees met and made efforts to solve the problems entrusted to
them. The Liberals worked hard to make the Conference a success. Their responsibility in the second
R.T.C. was even greater than at the first one in that Mahatma Gandhi was persuaded to join the
Conference through their good offices. Any failure of the Conference would mean not only a double

198
failure—Gandhiji’s going back empty-handed and their personal frustration, but also a failure of
their avowed creed of constitutional agitation through negotiations and conferences. Sir Tej was the
moving spirit of the Conference and if the Conference can be credited with any achievement it was
mainly owing to his untiring energy. Lord Sankey, opening the Plenary Session, paid a tribute to
Sapru and said that in erecting the edifice of the Indian Constitution, he (Sankey) acted as a Clerk of
the Works, but “ we have also had a very able and experienced foreman .... he has always given us
good advice, has always told us what are the best plans and where the material ought to be put. We
have generally obeyed him. Let me place on record our obligation to our foreman, Sir Tej Sapru.”1

Sapru’s Estimate of the Conference: In the Second meeting of the plenary session of the Second
R.T.C. Sapru observed.2

that in the previous Conference the idea of an All India Federation had emerged. While appreciating
the difficulties of the Princes, he laid down with candour his chief points of dissent with them, viz.,
(a) amount of representation, (b) method of representation and (c) the question of smaller states.
He hoped that the

1 Proceedings of the Second Session of I.R.T.C., p• 9.

2 Sapru’s speech—Proceedings of 2nd Session of I.R.T.C., pp. 178-195.

F.’ 41

scheme which would be placed on the statute book would be comprehensive enough to give proper
place not merely to the bigger states, but to the smaller states also.

He warned the Government that old-fashioned instalment system of reforms was doomed to failure
and that a comprehensive scheme with Provincial Autonomy and responsibility at the Centre would
alone be acceptable to Indians. He was not much worried over safeguards. For the solution of the
minority problem, to him there was no sacrifice which was not worth making.

In brief, the position that the Liberals as a whole took at the second R.T.C., was not different from
that at the previous Conference or the one sanctioned by the National Liberal Federation. They were
for a complete transfer of power to the provinces with no reservations for the Governors except and
only when the machinery of Government broke down. They stood for a simultaneous transfer of all
power at the Centre with the exception of defence and external affairs and paramountcy.’ They
were opposed to Commercial and Financial Discriminations.

In regard to safeguards in finance, Cowasji was pre-pared “by the constitution to give the British
Government a watching brief to guard her responsibility, but. . . .not.. . . to place the British
Government in the position of a mortgagee in possession. The Liberals could concede checks and
counter-checks in the constitution. But this control could be tolerated if exercised by the Indian
Government and not from Whitehall, seven thousand miles away.’

Sastri’s speech—Ibid., p. 285.

a Cowasji Jehangir—Proceedings of 2nd R.T.C. Plenary Session. P. 29.

199
THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 32t

Sastri• was amazed to find the Discriminative clause in regard to Commerce being included in the
Constitution. The Liberals were strongly opposed to administrative dis-criminations as being
unnecessary. They also did not fail to impress upon the British Government that if the Govern-ment
sent them back home empty-handed, it would indicate to the masses of India that the only method
of gaining liberty was through non-cooperation.

It may be stated here that in respect to Safeguards the position of the Liberals was very similar to
that of Gandhiji who said, “I do not hesitate to repeat that the Congress is pledged to giving
safeguards... . which may be demonstrated to be in the interests of India.”‘ On the question of
Defence, the Congress and the Liberals’ view-points came much nearer, Gandhiji wanted Defence to
be a transferred subject, but he agreed that large powers might be left in the hands of the Viceroy
during the transitional period. The Liberals held that it should be a Crown subject, but that large
powers should be given to the Legislature in matters which were not directly concerned with the
safety and tranquillity of India. A formula could be devised, as Jayakar said, which would satisfy
both.2

But a study of Gandhiji’s speeches on several heads of Federal Structure Committee and Minorities
Committees and those of the prominent Liberals reveal that Gandhiji was utterly dissatisfied with
what was being done at the Gon----------

• It was to be based upon a reciprocity agreement. He made two suggestions to take away the sting
and offence of such disabling provisions: (i) these restrictions to be put into that chapter of the
constitution which would be open to revision and modification by the Indian Legislature without the
necessity of coming to the Imperial Parliament and (ii) that a clause may be entered in the
Instrument of Instructions to the Viceroy that these safeguarding powers must be exercised only in
the interest of India. Proceedings I.R.T.C. II, p. 285.

1 Proceedings of 2nd R.T.C. Plenary Session—Gandhiji’s speech, p. 271.

2 Ibid., p. 119.

ference, whereas the Liberals had no such complaint. Gandhiji ‘unburdened’ himself by saying that
the delegates to the Conference were not the chosen ones of the nation and that there was a sense
of unreality about the proceedings’ —there was no attempt to come to grips and to brass tacks.2 In
his judgment the minority problem would not be solved till foreign rule was withdrawn.5 He felt that
all time was occupied with non-essential things and the real issue was evaded. On most of the items
he had dissenting opinions. On the other hand, the Liberals thought that the Indian section of the
Conference was thoroughly representative’ and that the Conference marked a distinct stage of
advance.5

Results of the Second I.R.T.G.: At the close of the Conference the Prime Minister made a statement.
It reaffirmed the British Government’s commitment to set up an all India Federation. But the
Premier said that “it has not been possible for the states to settle amongst themselves their place in
the Federation and their mutual relationships within it. “0

200
Dominion Status, which had brought the Liberals to the first R.T.C., was eclipsed by the brighter
prospect of an all India Federation, but it appeared to be out of reach for the present. The next
crucial issue was that of responsibility at the Centre. It, too, could not be granted because the “key
question of how to safeguard the minorities under a responsible Central Government” could not be
settled. So came the announcement. “The principle of responsible Federal government, subject to
certain reservations and safe-

Gandhiji’s speech, Proceedings of F. S. Committee and M. Committee, Vol. I, p. 157.

Gandhiji’s speech, Proceedings of the Plenary Session 2nd I.R.T.C., 272.

Ibid., p. 273.

4 Sapru’s speech, F. S. Committee and M. Committee p. 8. 5Sastri’s speech, Plenary Session, p. 287—
his exhortations to Gandhiji are worth reading.

6 Proceedings of the 2nd LR.T.C. Plenary, Gandhiji’s speech, p.

291.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 325

guards through a -transition period, remains unchanged.”‘ As regards the Provinces, the Premier
announced that “they are to be responsibly governed units, enjoying the greatest possible measures
of freedom from outside interference and dictation in carrying out their own policies in their own
sphere.” As Gandhiji said in the Conference, if words had not different implications for different
men, even the Pro-vincial Autonomy appeared to be truncated. The Premier further promised3 to
set up three Committees as recom-mended by the Conference: (a) to investigate and advise on the
revision of franchise and constituencies, (b) to put to the test of detailed budgetary facts and figures
the recom-mendation of the Federal Finance Sub-Committee and (c) to explore more fully the
specific financial problems arising in connection with certain individual states. The Premier accepted
Sastri’s recommendation that the said Committees should not be entrusted to the ‘unenthusiastic,
dry-as-dust hands of the bureaucracy,* and placed under British public men. Further, he announced
that the Government proposed to appoint a small representative Committee—a working
Committee—of this Conference which would remain in being in India and with it the Government
would keep in effective touch through the Viceroy. The Indian delegates went to England to get
Dominion Status but they got Com-mittees.

Indian Situation: Meanwhile, the economic situation in India had deteriorated. The great depression
was in full swing. Government had to face heavy deficits and to make these up they imposed new
taxes. Conditions in the U.P. were worst. An agrarian revolution was in the offing. The Congress
decided to start a no-rent campaign in the U.P. to

“Proceedings of 2nd I.R.T•C., Plenary Session, p. 291. a Ibid., p. 294.

4 Proceedings-2nd I.R.T.C., p. 286. •

201
resist the additional taxation. The revolutionaries in Bengal were causing a serious trouble to the
Government. The Left Wingers in the Congress were opposed to the Delhi Pact, for nothing could be
done under it for prisoners in the Meerut Conspiracy case and the failure of the second R.T.C. ignited
their ire. In the Frontier -Province, Red Shirt Volunteers, under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar,
were reported to be engaged in subversive activities. The Government was subsisting on
Ordinances.

When Gandhiji landed in Bombay, on Dec. 28, 1931, he was faced with a critical situation. He sought
an interview with the Viceroy but the latter refused to talk on the Ordinances issued by him. Soon
after Gandhiji, Patel and others were detained in Yervada Prison indefinitely. Jawahar Lal had
already been arrested while on his way to Bombay to receive Gandhiji. Sweeping arrests of the
Congress leaders were made. Civil disobedience again started and thousands came forward to court
arrest. Willingdon and Samuel Hoare seemed to be determined to strangle the Congress movement.

Liberal Protest Against the Communal Award: On August 17, 1932, Ramsay MacDonald announced
the Com-munal Award. It was an attempt to adjust the claims of minorities. It was resented bitterly
both by the Congress and the Liberal Party. Separate electorates were provided for the minority
communities and specially for the Muslims in Bengal and the Punjab, although they happened to be
in a majority there. Weightage was given to them where they were in a minority. The Liberal Party
vehemently protested against these decisions. The U.P. Liberal Association in its meeting of August
24, 1932, with Chintamani in the chair, recorded its strong disapproval of the Communal Award in as
much as it retained and extended the evil of separate, communal and class electorates, provided
separate representation to numerous sectional interests and was cal

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 327

culated to impede national growth. Similar protests were

made by other Liberal Associations, such as the Madras

Liberal League, the W. I. and Liberal Associations, Bombay.

The Liberals and Gandhi’s Fast unto Death: What upset Gandhiji specially was the treatment of the
depressed classes as a minority community and conceding of separate electorates to them. Gandhiji
wrote to the Prime Minister that he would resist this part of the award with a fast unto death. The
latter’s reply was that it could be substituted by other electoral arrangement only on an agreement
of the Communities concerned. Ambedkar condemned the fast as a ‘political stunt’. It was a
situation which taxed the Nation’s nerves. There was no dearth of sympathy and love for Gandhiji,
but empty words could not improve the situation. A practical solution was needed. It was offered by
the liberals. Sapru demanded Gandhiii’s immediate release and advised the Government not to take
risk with the life of one who alone could make a contribution to the solution of the Communal
problem by mutual agreement. A Conference of Hindu leaders was held on September 19, 1982 in
which, besides other Hindu leaders, Liberals like Sapru, Setalvad and Kunzru were present. They
decided to save Gandhiji’s life and eradicate untouchability.

On the question of joint electorates, there was no agreement. Sapru suggested the adoption of a
system of primary and secondary election for a limited number of seats. He said that this plan, while
maintaing the system of joint electorates would enable the depressed classes to choose their own

202
candidates. Ambedkar and Solanki were agreeable to the proposal, but Gandhiji wanted it to be
extended to all the seats. With great difficulty a solution was sought by the Liberals and Malaviyaji
acceptable to Gandhiji and Ambedkar. The Government Communique was issued and shown to
Gandhiji. He wanted it to be referred to the Depressed classes in a Conference. At ‘this Kunzru
assured

Gandhiji that “even we— (Liberals) who are cooperating with you in this matter and are anxious to
save your life, even we, had we been in the Government’s position, could not have issued a different
communique.”‘ Gandhiji broke his fast.

“The only excuse”, says Chintamani, “for this Poona Pact was that it became necessary to save Mr.
Gandhi’s life.”2 The Poona Pact gave the Depressed classes much undue advantages. Under the
Award, “they were given 71 seats in all provincial legislatures put together out of which not more
than 10 were given in Bengal. According to the settlement the award was raised from 71 to 148 out
of which 30 were given in Bengal.”3 Setalvad says, “he (Gandhiji) gave them 30 seats in Bengal
instead of 10 which has always been felt as a great grievance by the Hindus in Bengal.”4

The Three Committees: The promised three com-mittees were sent out to India in the early part of
1932. The Indian States Committee presided over by the Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Davidson considered the
problems arising out of the Federation of the Indian States with British India. Similarly, the Percy
Committee concerned itself with the financial aspects. Neither of these committees lincluded any
Liberal leader or other Indian public-men from British India. The Franchise Committee presided over
by Lord Lothian included a good number of Indians. Both on the Indian Franchise Committee and on
Provincial Franchise Committees the Liberals were not neglected. In the U.P. Franchise Committee
Pandit H. N. Kunzru was amongst the non-official members. Instead of taking into consideration the
evidence of individual Liberals, we shall give in brief the views contained in the memorandum
submitted by the council of the National Liberal Federation of India.

1 Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. III, p. 215.

2 & 3 C. Y. Chin tarnmi: Indian Politics since the Mutiny, p. 134, 4 Setalvad’s Recollections and
Reflections, p. 375,

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 329

Indian Franchise Committee and the Liberal Party: On the question of Adult suffrage, the opinions in
the Liberal Party were divided. The position of the Party was summed up at a meeting of the
Franchise Sub-Committee of R.T.C. in London held on 22nd Dec., 1930 by Mr. C. Y. Chintamani in the
following words :

“Opinion in the Liberal Party on the question of adult franchise is divided, but from what happened
at the meeting of the Liberal Party at Allahabad in 1928,

I should conclude that the Majority arc in favour of adult franchise and only a minority, though an
influential minority, is against.” “The position,” says the Lieral memorandum, “remains much the
same today and many Liberals would favour the immediate adoption of adult suffrage, which they

203
believe would prove the best solvent of the many difficulties communal and others.. ..... At the same
time, there is a ....strong feeling that the immediate introduction of adult suffrage is not practical

The Council recommended:2 that “every endea-vour must be made to enfranchise at least 15% of
the population” which might he expanded later on. Fur-ther, “the importance of the right of vote as
being in itself an educative factor cannot be under-estimated.”

Group system of voting was opposed by the Council as likely to encourage factions. They Ifavoured a
lower property qualification for the vote and also an educational qualification but opposed the
retention of the existing military service qualifications. The Council considered that joint electorates
without reservation of seats was not practical politics for the present.

1 Indian Franchise Committee, Vol. V, pp. 604-605.

2 Memorandum submitted by the Council of N.L.F. of India—Selections from Memoranda and Ctral
Evidence; Ibid., pp. 604-610.

F. 42

Minutes of Dissent: the Annual Register, 1932, Vol. L, jan.—

June, pp. 460-71.

In the opinion of the Council women should be admitted to the suffrage on the same terms as
regards property and educational qualifications, but they opposed the creation of separate
electorates for women.

The Council were totally against the creation of separate electorates for the Depressed classes but
favoured joint electorates with reservation of seats.

“All special constituencies militate against the ideal of a national democracy and, therefore, the
Liberal Party is not in favour of recognising any special interest in the matter of representation.” If
special representation was to remain, the Council suggested that in lIniversities’ representation all
graduates should be entitled to vote and that franchise should he widened to include a large number
of commercial bodies.

As regards Labour, the Council supported the prin-ciple of parity between the representation of
Capital and Labour.

With regard to the allocation of scats to various provinces in the Federal Assembly, population alone
should not be taken as the only test. The importance of the province in other respects—railways,
ports—should also be taken into account.

Tambe, Chintamani and Bakhale appended a minute of dissent which contained points relating to
adult franchise, a possible wage census, the depressed classes, special interests, second chambers in
the provinces and federal Legislature.’

204
Samuel Hoare’s Announcement and Liberal Reaction: On June 27, 1932, a statement was made by
Sir Samuel that the Government had decided to provide for autonomous constitutions for the
provinces and for a federation in a single

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 331

bill. The Consultative Committee would proceed with its programme of work and if its conclusions
proved satis-factory, the third session of the R.T.C. would be abandoned.

This change of plan upset the Indian Liberal -Leaders and they lodged a protest against it. In a
lengthy statement on June 29, 1932, Sapru and Jayakar issued protests against the Secretary of
State’s Announcement. The W . I. National Liberal Associations on July 4, 1932, the U. P. Liberal
Association on June 2, 1932, and the South Indian Liberal Federation, on August 5, sent to the
authorities similar protests.

Sir Samuel defended this change of policy as necessary to cut short the period of uncertainty which
“creates suspicion, undermines authority and saps the foundations of friendship”. *

To show their resentment in action, Sapru, Jayakar and Joshi, the members of the Consultative
Committee, tendered their resignation from it. On July 10, 1932, a meeting, under the presidentship
of Sir Chimanlal, of some of the delegates, mostly Liberals, was held in Bombay. Among the Liberals,
Sastri, Sapru, Jayakar, Chintanrani, Ram Chandra Rao, Cowasji, Joshi, Jadhav, Pheroze Sethna and
Setalvad were present. The manifesto stated that they had reviewed Sir Samuel’s announcement
and other statements issued in explanation thereof and concluded that the new procedure was
entirely different in substance and spirit, from the Conference method as expounded by Irwin in
October, 1929 and July, 1930 and by the Premier in Dec., 1931. The new procedure, according to it,
was symptomatic of a new policy and could not produce satisfactory results. The Liberals Party was
supported in its action by other parties also.

• But Sapru said on July 9, that the new procedure was politically and morally indefensible. “Fine
words and ingenious explanations, therefore, cannot conceal the hard facts of the situation.” In his
opinion the National Government was now firm in the saddle and that was why there was the
change in the policy. Interview to the Representative of the Leader, July,9, 1932.

1Setalvad’s letter tb Viceroy, Oct. 29, 1932, Setalvad’s Recollections and Reflections, pp. 378-379.

On August 9, the Servants of India Society, Poona issued a manifesto signed by a large number of
Liberal leaders to the effect that thenew procedure announced by the Secretary of State on June 27,
1932 marked such a great departure from the R. C. method that it was wholly unacceptable. In the
circumstances, it urged upon its countrymen not to assist in the further stages of constitution-
making until the former method was restored.

This forced the Government to modify its attitude. Even the Tories could not afford to alienate the
sympathies of the constitutionalists. On September 5, 1932, while opening the Autumn Session of
the Indian Legislative Assembly, the Governor-General announced that a third Round Table

205
Conference would be held in London in the middle of the next year but at this Conference only a
small body of representatives from British India and the States would assemble.

Dame rumour whispered into Setalvad’s ear that in the coming Conference Sastri and Chintamani
were not being invited. Setalvad wrote to the Viceroy that Chintamani was the official head of the
Liberal Party,’ but all was in vain.

The fact of the matter seems to have been that the Tory Government found even the Liberals too
inconvenient to deal with.

Third Round Table Conference :It started its work on Nov. 17, 1932 and closed it on Dec. 24, 1932. In
Chinta-mani’s phrase, it was “a very truncated Round Table Conference”. Even the Labour Party
refused to take part in it because in their opinion the Government had gone back upon their words.
The Congress also did not join it. It was only one party’s show. Sapru, as he did on the two previous
occasions, placed the viewpoint of the Indian Libe

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 333

ral Party in particular and the nationalist standpoint in general. The points that he raised at the
Conference may be summarised:

1. Provincial Autonomy alone would not satisfy us.

2. A date for the inauguration of the Federation should be fixed.

3. If by the date the Princes do not decide to join the Federation, the Federation must be made to
function leaving it open for the States to come as and when they please.

-I. I t will be dangerous to start the new constitution

in the provinces and leave the centre unaltered.

Sir Samuel Hoare summed up the Government’s atti-tude:—

1. Muslims were allowed 3311(/’ representation in the Federal Legislature in British India.

2. No definite date for inauguration of Federation could be given.

Sind and Orissa would be made separate pro-vinces.

4. The Defence budget was to be non-votable.

The Third R.T.C., as was apprehended from its personnel, proved to be a failure. The Tories, who had
appointed the Statutory Commission, refused to go beyond the line laid down by the Commission. In
fact, they wanted to grant Provincial Autonomy with safeguards. Even the Liberal Party was
reluctant to accept it in the form offered.

The White Paper: After the Third R.T.C. the British Government issued a White Paper containing
proposals for constitutional reforms in India subject to further alterations by the Joint Committee as
well as the two Houses of Parliament. But the then political atmosphere of England in which Irwin’s
policy was characterized as ‘the quintessence

206
3

of weakness’ and `Willingdonanism` as an antithesis to Irwinisrn, A. P. Sen’s conclusion appears to be

correct “that in the Constitution Act passed by Parliament there will be even less of real self-
government for India.”‘ The Leftist groups in India treated the White Paper proposals with contempt.
It was known to the Liberal Party that the White Paper was a mere catalogue of safeguards and that,
as Chamberlain put it, “His Majesty’s Government had surrounded their proposals with all the
safeguards which the wit of man could devise.”2

The National Liberal Federation of India held two sessions in the year 1933, one at. Calcutta in April
and the other in Madras in December and the U. P. Liberals in October, 1933 to consider the White
Paper, threshing out assiduously every item of the Constitution in a masterly exposition and
condemning it in tom. Yet the Liberal Party was reluctant to reject it. Pandit I-lirdaya Nath Kunzru
adduced the following arguments in support of this view.3

(1) Can the mere rejection of the Bill put the Indians in a better position to deal with the racial
and religious minorities with the different interest

which the British Govet nment used to prove the necessity of maintaining the power in their own
hands?

(2) Will the States be prepared more than now to allow their representatives to be sent to the
Central Legislature through a process of elections?

The Liberal Party held that:

1. The White Paper Scheme did not take the country anywhere near Dominion Status.

Report: U. P. Liberal Conference, Allahabad, Oct. 21, 1933, p. 9.

2 Ibid., p. 69.

3 Ibid., p. 10.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 335

2. The Federal scheme was defective, partial and un-satisfactory. Its inauguration was
sub

ject to such conditions and limitations as would reduce it to a distant dream.’ The Princes put
forward 18 conditions* precedent for joining the Federation some of which, if accepted, would
totally alter the basis of the proposals agreed to at the Conference.2 “If and when - it does come into
existence” queries Chintamani, “what sort of Federation will it be?”‘ He answers, “It will he a
federation to which there is no parallel elsewhere.” It will consist of a Legislature even the Lower
House of which will include representatives not of the people but of the rulers of the States, a
legislature the elected element of which will represent....members of ....12 and 14 separate
communal and sectional electorates.”‘ The federal executive would be a maimed body with no
powers in vital matters.

207
3. “Provincial autonomy” says Chintamani, “on exa-mination will be found to be no autonomy
at I Presidential Address: Report U. P. Liberal Conference, p. 11

* That federal laws should not apply proprio rigori to Indian States, that a reserve bank would have
to be set up and would have to be in successful operation, that a number of Indian princes should
agree to join the Federation, that 51 per cent of the population of the Indian States and that 51 ,per
cent of the seats should be represented by the State which agreed to join the Federation, that the
princes should be given the right of secession from the Federation at their will, that there should be
a Royal Proclamation, that both Houses of Parliament would have to present an Address to His
Majesty praying for such a Proclamation—were some of the conditions which would make the
Federation an adorable dream.

2 Presidential Address by M. Ramchandra Rao, N. F., Calcutta, April, 1933; p. 16.

3 Chintamani on White Paper Resolution; U. P. Liberal Conference, p. 55.

*Ibid., p. 55.

all.”‘ “The popular Houses will be a conglomeration of representatives of separate electorates,

communal and sectional, and it will be a miracle if there is a strong organised party formed on
political and non-communal or non-sectional basis which can he an effective opposition to the
Government of the futute.”2

Similarly military control, finance control, control of the Services, legislative control, Governor-
General’s Acts, Governor’s Acts, special responsibilities of the Governor-General and Governor,
separate communal electorates, etc. sabotaged the substance of power and made the White Paper
farcical. In brief, in the opinion of the Liberal Party there was next to nothing in the White Paper
which could make an appeal to them.

Chintamani referred to a letter3 which Samuel Hoare wrote to his constituents of Chelsea in which
Sir Samuel said that the present National Government in England were most anxious that the
Constitution Act for India should be considered and passed by the present Government and present
Parliament so that the problem might not be left over for consideration by a new Government and
new Parliament which might be less regardful of the British and Imperial interests than the present
Government and the present Parliament. At another place he called the White Paper an `Organised
hypocrisy’.’

Chintamani was regarded as an extreme Liberal bordering on Leftism, but even Rightists like Moulvi
Abdul Samad,

1 Chintamani on White Paper Resolutions, U. P. Liberal Gan-ference, Allahabad, Oct. 1933, p. 56.

2 lbid., p. 56.

3 Ibid.

4Ibid., p. 60.

208
THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 337

M.L.C. described the White Paper as a palace of fine words and said that the White Paper proposals
gave us only the shadow of self-government and not the substance and that the communal problem
was wrecked on the rock of communalism so well set up by the Government.”

But all sections of the Liberals passed the resolution which concluded thus:—

“In conclusion, the National Liberal Federation of India deems it its duty to record its strong
conviction that the White Paper proposals as they stand cannot possibly satisfy even the most
moderate sections of progressive opinion and will, far from appeasing unrest and allaying
discontent, further aggravate the present unhappy conditions, alienate Indian opinion and greatly
intensify the present acute and wide-spread discontent. A generous and far-reaching measure of
real reform on the lines of Dominion Constitution which will make India an equal member of the
British Commonwealth of Nations, will alone meet India’s requirements and will satisfy the National
self-respect of India.”2

No section of nationalists could accept the proposals

under the White Paper because, as Keith put it, “it was

rather definitely drawn up in order to placate the volume of

Conservative criticism which had been steadily growing ever

since the conclusion of the first session of the Conference.”

The Joint Select Committee: The new Bill was in due

course considered by a J. S. C. of Parliament. The person

nel of the Committee was marked by predominance of con

servative opinion. Keith opines “that a more impartial

‘Resolution on White Paper, Madras, 1933, p. 59. 2 Ibid., pp. 64-67.

8 A. B. Keith: A Constitutional History pf India (1600-1935), 2nd. ed., London, 1937, p. 308.

F. 43

body should have been set up.”1 Some Liberals were sum-moned to give evidence before the Joint
Select Committee.’ They knew that no useful purpose would be served by their presence before the
Gommittee, still they wanted to use the occasion for creating a public opinion in their favour. The
Committee appreciated the assistance of the select body of Indian representatives, who took part in
its proceedings, somewhat in the attitude of assessors and who presented to it an expression of
their views on the position.’

209
Some minor modifications were made in the proposed scheme by the Joint Select Committee.
Neither the separate memoranda on various points furnished by the Liberals and others nor the joint
memorandum signed by all the British Indian delegates could bend the architects of the new Indian
constitution to the views of Indian nationalists. Even Attlee’s separate draft in which he said many
kind things for India could not effect anything substantial.

Liberal Reaction to the Report of the Joint Select Com-mittee: When the Report of the J. S. C. was
published towards the end of 1934 the Liberal Party expressed its abhor-rence of it. It saw in the
Report not only the obnoxious features of the White Paper but found it retrograde in one or two
essential factors of democratic government, e.g., the method of election to the Central Legislature.
The National Liberal Federation met at Poona in 1934 under the presidency of Pandit Hirdayanath
Kunzru. Kunzru condemned the Report for its communal basis, undue preference for the Services,
for indirect elections to the Central Legis

1A. B. Keith:—A Constitutional History of India (1600-1935), 2nd. ed., London, 1937, p. 309.

a The Liberal Delegates:—C. P. Ramaswami Aiyer, Jaykar, Joshi, Kelkar, Sapru, Pheroze Sethna.

a A. B. Keith: A Constitutional History of India (1600-1935), p. 309,

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY $S9

lature, for a host of safeguards, for provision of Second Cham- bers in two additional provinces and
for avoiding reference to Dominion Status.

The session was important for two reasons: firstly, a small section of young Liberals showed defiance
of the seniors’ authority and thus indicated a Leftist proclivity in the Federation and, secondly, Sastri
made a striking speech. He said, “Liberals cannot give their active cooperation to a Government
prepared to enact a constitution in defiance and disregard of our dearest wishes; that would be
suicide.’’’ He said that the Safeguards in the J.S.C. report amounted to blackmail. In its main
resolution also the Liberal Federation expressed their profound regret at the work of the J.S.C.

It was apparent that their warning and advice had had no effect on the British die-hards who were
intent on thwarting the national aspirations of the country.

The Bill in Parliament: The Act was passed on December 20, 1935. As a result of the Niemeyer Report
on Indian finances, it was decided that Provincial Autonomy under the Act would be inaugurated on
April 1, 1937, leaving Federation to be introduced later on.

The Government of India Act was a victory of the Con-servatives of England. What Birkenhead
contemplated was faithfully consummated by Sir Samuel Hoare.

The Act and the Liberal Party: The Act of 1935 is a landmark in the history of the Liberal Party in India
for several reasons:

(i) Hereinafter the Liberal Party ceased to function as a political party competing with others at
the polls.

(ii) It came politically much nearer to the Congress than ever before but did not fuse with it.

210
1 Sastri’s speech on the main Resolution: Joint Select Committee’s Report and Indian Constitutional
Reforms.: N. L. F., Poona, 1934, (3rd. Register) .

(iii) Henceforward it assumed mainly a mediatorial role in politics.

The Act was taken to he a defeat of the Liberals. Except in the first R.T.C., in no other Conference or
Committee connected with the passage of the Act their views were honoured. In fact, the tardy
proceedings of the Tories stiffened qhintamani into a leftist Liberal and created some differences
between him and Sapru who severed his relation with the Liberal Party and “proudly owned himself
belonging to no party.”‘ Technically he might have ceased to be a member of the Liberal Party, but
like Gandhiji who also ceased to be a four-anna member of the Congress, he nevertheless remained
the soul of Liberalism and Liberalism remained his soul. Pandit Kunzru deemed it “as a flagrant
instance of dishonesty on the part of the British Government” in not nationalising the Indian army
although the subject had been discussed by one of the sub-committees of the R.T.C.2 The
disappointment felt by the Party betrayed itself in the Presidential remark, that, “we must reverse
the old saying that we should cooperate whenever possible and oppose where necessary. We must
now say to ourselves that we should cooperate where necessary, but should oppose wherever
possible.”3

Yet, the Act cannot be said to have remained entirely uninfluenced by the Liberal touch at the
various R.T.Cs. The federal structure of the constitution, dyarchy at the centre, provincial autonomy
and the establishment of the Federal Court all bore a Liberal stamp in their framework, if not in
substance, and had they not been heavily shackled

1 V. N. Naik: Indian Liberalism, p. 210.

Kunzru on Resolution regarding the Army and Military ex-penditure N. L. F., 1935, Nagpur, pp. 57-58.

8 T. R. Venkatrama Sastri’s Presidential Address, N. L. F., Nagpur, 1935, p. 23.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 341

by brakes at every, step, the Act of 1935 could have signalised the triumph of Liberal statesmanship.
Sapru, since 1923, and other Liberals since 1924, in and before the Reforms Enquiry Committee and
in various other Conferences of the Liberal Federation had laid stress on Provincial Autonomy with
simultaneous responsibility at the Centre, with some safeguards for the transitional period. This
demand was repeated at the R.T.Cs. The Act conceded these demands but loaded them with chains.
Still, the fact that the Congress agreed to work Provincial autonomy testifies to the worth,
howsoever limited, of the Act.

Whether it was a defeat or victory of Liberal statesmanship, it rang the exit of the Party from active
politics—seeking election and forming ministries—as the Liberals knew that they had neither the
organisation, nor the influence among the masses, nor even the requisite membership to fight an
election on a large scale to compete with the well-organised and popular Congress Party.

211
They were so diffident that they thought that the Congressmen might not ‘find us sufficiently strong
even to seek our cooperation.’ Ministerial responsibilities could in future only come to those who
were elected to the legislatures. Further the Party made no appeal to the younger generation for in
their opinion the Liberals had no effective weapon to bring pressure on Government to concede the
national demand,a and that they had shown much less sacrifice than persons of other parties.1 The
Liberals also felt that a great deal of political importance would, in the future, naturally attach to the
people who would enter the legislatures and deal with national matters.* Their willingness to
cooperate with the Congress became evident in that the

M. V. joshi’s address as the chairman of the Reception Committee, N. L. F., Nagpur, 1935. p. 4.

2-3 Ibid., p.. 3. 4 Ibid., p. 4.

Liberal President accorded for the first time felicitations to Congress at the attainment of the 50th
year of its life and said,” we are colleagues in effort and brethren in service.”‘ Not only this but they
passed a resolution that all nationalists of all parties should. . .act together in the general elections
so as to secure their return to the legislatures in the largest tiumber.2

After 1936: The Congress, however, took a turn which rendered cooperation difficult. At the
Lucknow session 1936, the Congress decided that they would seek election, but the question of
office acceptance would be decided later on. The Liberal Party thought this decision was unfair to
the electorate, in that it extended a doubtful hope to both Congressmen who were for and against
office acceptance.’ Moreover, there were some basic differences which made the fusion impossible.
In a speech on “Nagpur and After” at Madras, V. S. Srinivas Sastri said* that the Liberal Party was
opposed to Civil Disobedience and they did not want merely temporary suspension of the
movement but an abandonment thereof. Again, the Liberals were still wedded to Dominion Status
while the Congress now believed in ‘Puma Swaraj’. Yet again, the Liberals could not reconcile
themselves to the idea of making Khaddar a compulsory condition of membership of the Congress
and the condition of manual labour by every Congressman was, in the Liberal opinion, of dubious
import. They did not object to it except when laid down as a Commandment. There was neither any
anxiety among Congressmen to seek their cooperation. Nehru described the Servants of India
Society as ‘a monas

1 T. R. Venkatrama Sastri’s Presidential Address, Ibid, p. 11.

3 Main Resolution regarding the New Constitution, p. 42. Cowasji Jehangir’s Presidential Address, R.
N. L. F., Lucknow, 1936.

4 V. S. Srinivas Sastri’s speech on ‘Nagpur & After’ in a public meeting held on January 5, 1936, under
the auspices of the Madras Liberal League.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 343

tery’ whose inhabitants had long been cut off from the outside world.’ He had highly resented their
cooperation in the R.T.Cs. which in his opinion proved to be a moral factor of value to the
Government.’

212
Yet, in the U. P. Liberal Conference held at Faizabad on April 11, 1936, Hanuman Singh and
Chintamani ap-pealed to the Liberals to fight hard in the coming elections to keep out both
revolutionaries and reactionaries. The Liberals as a party, however, retired from active participation
from the activities that were shaping India now. They were content to act as monitors in the political
life and guide the country by their constructive criticism on all public questions.

Henceforward the Liberal Party entered upon a career of mediation between the Government and
the Congress and the names of Sapru and Jayakar became a synonym for peacemakers. The
contribution of these two leaders to the constitutional advancement of the country by resolving
political deadlocks alone was big enough to entitle the Liberal Party to be considered as a vital factor
in the recent history of the Country.

Though reduced to the phantom of its previous glory, the Liberal Party still wished that the Reforms
would be worked by the Progressive parties “to utilize the constitu-tion so as to extract from it
whatever good it can yield;8 for, if they would not work the Act, the Act would work them,* and
what one could do in ten years by wielding office, one could not do in hundred years if one remained
out of of ce,8 as work within the legislatures would quicken the

Nehru’s Autobiography, p. 409. 2 Ibid., p. 412.

8 Rt. Hon. V. S. Srinivas Sastri on Resolution regarding New Constitution, N. L. F., Nagpur, 1935, p. 42.

4 T, R. Venkatrama Sastri’s Presidental, Address, Ibid., p. 23. 6 V. S. Sastri on Resolution,•New

Constitution, Ibid., p. 46.

work in the country and the party in power would be able to do a great deal more than in
opposition.’ But the Liberal Party warned the would-be ministers to take office with honour and to
drop it if it meant any dishonour or betrayal of the final interests of India.2

When in the summer of 1937 the Congress, having swept the polls, agreed to form ministries in 7
out of 11 provinces, the Liberal Party exulted over the victory of its principles. “I claim,” declared
Setalvad, “that the Liberal Party won a signal victory not at the polls, but in the acceptance of Liberal
principle and constitutional methods by the Congress.” The Liberals also claimed that the Congress
was enjoying the fruits of their labour because the latter was engaged in direct action at a time
when the constitution was being evolved.’ The Claim of victory of principles made by the Liberal
Party stood vindicated and the working of the Constitution by the Congress ministries under the
supervision of a Governor signified that Liberal methodology was not without some purpose.

The Liberal Criticism of the Congress Ministries: Setalvad opined that Congress cabinets should have
included such Muslims as had enjoyed the confidence of their community and not to take a member
who signed the Congress pledge on one day and was made minister the next day.5 But Setalvad
seemed to have forgotten that the Muslim League was not the only Party to have been appeased,
the move should have offended ‘Red Shirt.’ Muslims under Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Moreover, to come
to terms with the Muslim League was to come down from a national organisation to a Hindu

1 Presidential Address, Ibid., p. 23.

213
2 V. S. Sastri on Resolution, New Constitution, p. 47.

Presidential Address: N. L. F., Calcutta, 1937, p. 37.

4 P.N. Sapru’s Presidential Address, N. L. F., Bombay, 1938, p. 24. & Recollections and .Rellections, p.
388 and His Presidential

Address, Calcutta, 1937.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 345

party. As C. H. Philips puts it, “ ....There was no justifi-cation whatsoever for acceding to Mr. Jinnah’s
proposal to form coalition Governments with the Muslim League, the more so because the latter
was merely one and not necessarily the most important, of a number of Muslim Parties.”‘

It was gratifying to the Liberal Party that the Congress ministries had done things for which they had
formerly cri-ticised the Liberal ministries. Congress ministers had even to resort to section 144, lathi
charges, firing, etc., to establish law and order because they could not countenance any subversive
activity to bring about political change. The Liberals vehemently criticised the ministries for their
failings.’

The Work of Some Liberals in the Legislature: Al-though the Liberals had not fought the elections as
a Party, yet some of them were returned to the Legislatures. Mr. P. N. Sapru, Pandit Kunzru and Mr.
Pheroze Salina were elected to the Council of State.

Kunzru moved resolutions in the Council of State to safeguard Indian interests in Fiji, British Guiana
and Trinidad. He sought to protect the economic and educa-tional interests of Indians there and
secure the appointment of Agents of the Government of India for these colonies. Sir Jagdish Prasad,
who had also been for some time a Liberal and now was Education, Health and Lands Member at the
Centre, accepted the resolution on behalf of the Government.

Besides these, the floor of the House was utilized by these Liberals for urging the reduction of the
pay of the I.C.S. by at least 503/4,2 for criticising certification of Finance

C. H. Philips: India, (Hutchinson’s University Library 11. Straford Place, London, 1948), p. 132.

2 See Mr. P. N. Sapru’s Presidential Address for Working of Pro. vincial Autonomy, pp. 11-32 and the
Resolution regarding Working of Provincial Autonomy, pp. 40-46, R. N. L. F., Bombay, 1938.

Report Council of State Debates, on *September 20, 1937. F. 44

Bill which had become, in the words of Sapru, an annual fair and reduced the legislative work to a
‘mock democracy’, for the establishment of a national defence organisation’ which called for the
introduction of proper physical training in schools and colleges and establishment of Cadet Corps
and Officers Training Corps to give young men a preparatory military training, for demanding close
association of the legislature with the defence policy of the Government as Pheroze Sethna thought
that in his opinion Indians would not he ready to come forward with men and money as they did in
1914,2 and urging the freedom of the press’

214
In the hurly-burly of day-to-day politics, these Liberals did not forget cultural interests. P. N. Sapru
moved a resolution regarding the supply of Hindi and Urdu books to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and
the Anjuman-i-TaraqqiUrdu and said, “If we wish the culture which we have imbibed in our English
Schools and Colleges to filter down to the masses, it is clear that we must work through the Indian
languages and, therefore, the resolution is intended for the development of Indian languages.”

Advocacy of Social Reforms: In the social sphere, the work of these Liberals was admirable. On April
6, 1937, P. N. Sapru spoke on a Bill regarding Hindu Women’s Rights to Property moved by Dr.
Deshmukh in the Legislative Assembly. He said, ‘I would like women to have equal rights and
opportunities. I recognise, however, that progress towards this goal can only be a gradual one.5
Kunzru, supporting the Bill, said that he was not satisfied with the

1 Kunzru resolution regarding formation of National Army, 1938,

Vol. 1, pp. 599-600.

2 Report, Council of State Debates, Vol. II., 1938, p. 72.

3 Resolution regarding freedom of the Press, Ibid., 1942, Vol. II,

p. 237.

4 Report, Council of State Debates, Vol. 1, 6th March, 1942, p. 251. 3 Report, Council of States
Debates, Vol. I, 1937.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 347

Bill. He should have liked that a property which a woman inherits or the interest which she acquires
in property should be made absolute and that she should become the owner of the property.

On April, 7, 1937, P. N. Sapru took upon himself to pilot the Arya Samaj Marriages Validating Bill’ in
the Upper House and pointed out that the object of the Bill was that a marriage between Arya
Samajists would not be invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties at one time belonged to
different castes or different religions. The Bill was passed. It removed thus a great social disability.

Speaking on the Child Marriage Restraint Bill P. N. Sapru said, ‘Religion or no religion, I look upon
child marriage as sucide.’2

Moving a resolution regarding the appointment of a Committee for undertaking legislation in

relation to Hindu Marriages, he said that Hindu marriages should be made strictly monogamous;
there could not be a double sex standard for men and women. Polygamy and the harem degraded
women and modern conscience. In his opinion, the institution of polygamy lowered the status of
Indian civilization and enabled foreigners to point the finger of scorn to us. He said how a gentleman
in Australia asked him whether the lady who was his wife was the only wife he had and he
subsequently explained to Sapru that he had put that question because he had come across an
Indian nobleman on the Continent with three wives!

215
During the course of his speech he said, “Divorce would not lower but would equalize the
standard....divorce is necessary in the higher interests of society.” “The morality of the future
will....have to take into account the findings

1 Report, Council of State Debates, Vol. I, Gth March, 942, p. 777.

2 Ibid., April 8, 1938, Vol. I, pp. 672-673.

‘Ibid., Feb. 27, 1939, Vol. I, p. 388.

of physiology, biology and psychology,”, and, “we cannot allow ourselves to be dictated to by social
obscurantists and social react ion aries.’ “

Education: As regards higher education and unemploy-ment, Kunzru said that unemployment was
principally an economic question. “If you want to settle the problem of unemployment you are not
going to settle it by any amount of educational reconstruction alone. You can settle it only in a big
way by economic reconstruction, by raising the standard of the living of the people, by raising the
purchas-ing power of the people.”2

Sapru and Kunzru touched on the vast field of economic

policy also. ‘To take a few instances, Sapru, speaking on

the Indian Tariff (Second Amendment Bill) said in regard

to protection. “Even though we ardently desire industrial

ization, we cannot be blind protectionists, and I for one am

not disposed to raise any objection to the reduction of duty

on an article which is consumed by all classes and parti

cularly the lower middle classes which have a difficult time.”3

Labour: In regard to capital and labour their views

arc in keeping with their traditional ideology. Speaking

on the ‘Trade Disputes (Amendment) Bill’ P. N. Sapru

said, “It may not be possible to do away with the capitalist

system But it is certainly possible for us to have

humanised capitalism a reformed capitalism under

which it will be possible for the under-dog also to have fair play.”4

In his economic thought even strikes have a place, but Sapru advised their use in a restricted way!’

216
World War II and The Congress: The outbreak of World War II (Sept. 3, 1939) opened a new phase of

I Report, Council of States Debates, Feb. 27, 1939, Vol. I-p. 388. I Ibid., pp. 468-69.

3 Ibid., p. 999.

4-5 Report, Council of States Debates, 1938, Vol. I, pp. 525-26.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 349

inter-communal and political tension in India. We need only mention the leading events of the
period in so far they are relevant to our thesis. The declaration of war against Germany by the
Government without reference to the Congress ministries contrary to the previously declared reso-
lution of the Congress “to oppose all attempts to impose a war on India’”, the refusal of the
Government to declare their war aims, the suspension of the Federation part of the constitution to
please the Muslim League and evasion of the Congress demand to declare India “an independent
nation”2 and to enforce this fact as far as practicable immediately led to the resignation of the
Congress ministries and reversal to autocratic Government. The Congress again went “into the
wilderness”.

On December 22, 1939, the League, at Mr. Jinnah’s

initiative, observed a “Deliverance Day”, and on the follow

ing day, the Viceroy assured the League of full consideration

or Muslim views in any future constitutional set-up in

India. In March 1940, the Muslim League in its Lahore

Session made a formal demand for the establishment of

Pakistan. There is here more than a suspicion of the history

of 1908 repeating itself. In any case, the next 7 years wit

nessed a succession of demands, counter demands, and

riotous public demonstrations under the overshadowing

crises of the War that threatened to dinintegrate the country.

Lord Linlithgow, on behalf of the Government, made a

declaration (August 8, 1940) popularly known as the August

offer.• Gandhiji took the Viceregal pronouncement as

‘Resolution of A. 1. C. C. —August, 1939.

2 Sitaramayya—History of Congress, Vol. II, p. 189.

3 Muslim League Resolution, Lahore, March 26, 1940.

217
• August Offer:—Indian Constitution to be primarily the respon-sibility of Indians themselves with
two major provisions that no future Constitution, interim or final, could override the minority
opinion and that obligations to Britain would be fulfilled, As an interim measure during the War a
certain number of representative Indians to join Viceroy’s Executive Council and establish a war
advisory Council.

‘deeply distressing’’ and decided to launch individual Satyagrah as a moral protest, for he did not
want to “embarrass the Government by any mass action at the time”.

World War Ii and The Liberal Policy: The Liberal attitude towards the War was dictated by political
expedi-ency. They wanted to cooperate with the Government on account of the following
reasons:—

Firstly, the present position of India was helpless. She could not dictate to Britain even a conditional
bargain. So from the point of view of ‘enlightened selfishness’ India should stand by the British.’
Secondly, they felt that if England went down in the war, any hope of India attaining freedom and
democracy would vanish for ever.3 Thirdly, they visualised that even if the power were transferred
to Congress, they would have to hand it over to Hitler or any other power.’ Fourthly, they thought
that when the weaker states were at the mercy of stronger states, it was natural that India should be
on the side of those who were fighting against. Nazi aggression.5 Finally, the larger interests of India
and the whole world were bound up with the success of those who stood up for democracy and
freedom.’

But the Liberals, anxious to seize the opportunity for securing some facilities for military training to
Indians and Indianization of the army, did not forget to suggest to Britain that if she would help India
to travel quickly towards Dominion Status or even announce a change in her military policy, she
would bring about ‘a mental metamorphosis’ in the country.

Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. V, p. 395.

2 Chandravarkar’s speech on “Viceroy’s statement

official statements”, N. L. F., Allahabad, 1939, p. 41. 3-4 Setalvad’s speech on a Resolution regarding

Calcutta, 1940, pp. 50-53.

“ KU112111’S speech on International War, N. L. 1930, pp. 37-39. and subsequent War, N. L.
F., F., Allahabad,

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 351

In regard to the August Offer of the Viceroy, the Liberal Party in a resolution’ laid down:

that it gave the minorities a veto on constitutional progress, protested against the distinction drawn
by Amery between the status and function of a Dominion. urged upon the Government to grant
Dominion Status after the War and meanwhile reconstruct the Central Government on a national
basis. While moving the above resolution Mr. P. N. Sapru stated inter alia that obligations to Britain

218
should not be allowed to stand permanently in the way of our progress and that transitory nature of
constitution-making whetted the Muslim appetite. He warned the Government to note that “If the
minorities have rights, the majorities have also rights. You must balance the rights of the minorities
and of majorities.”2

Gandhiji’s individual Satyagrah began and Vinoba Bhave declared, “It is wrong to help the British war
effort with men or money. The only remedy against the war is to resist all wars by non-violent
resistance.” Vinoba’s arrest was followed by that of Nehru and other Congress leaders. ‘I’llere was a
deadlock between the Government and the Congress. The Government took shelter behind Hindu-
Muslim differences.

Non-Party Conference: Sir Tej with Dr. Jayakar and Sir Jagdish convened a Non-Party Political
conference° on March 13 and 14, 1941, at Bombay to end the deadlock. It passed a resolution that
the whole Executive Council of the Governor-General should consist entirely. of non-official Indians
drawn from important elements of public life and

1 Resolution 11 on the Constitution, N. L. F., Calcutta, 1940, pp. 34-41.

2 Mr. P. N. Sapru’s speech, ‘Resolution II on the Constitution’, N. L. F., Calcutta, 1940, p. 38.

3 The Indian Annual Register, Vol. I, Jan.—June, pp. 307-312.

transfer all portfolios including finance and defence during the pendency of the War and demanded
declaration of Dominion Status within a specified time-limit after the end of the war. Setalvad
dissented, arguing how a dozen Indians in the Executive Council would enlist the support of the
political parties in the country. He suggested that the Congress and the League should come
together and/or the conveners of the Conference and those who believed in it should form a new
strong Centre Party to fight the two parties and get the support of the country. Setalvad’s suggestion
was not heeded to.’

In December 1941 Japan entered the war. Singapore fell on the 15th February, 1942 and Rangoon
on 9th March, 1942. These events led to a fresh crisis in 1942.

At the most psychological moment, Sir Tej made a fresh start on January 3, 1942 by sending a
lengthy cable to Mr. Churchill signed by 15 non-Party leaders insisting that the “heart of India must
be touched to rouse her on a nationwide scale to call for service” and urged that “a national All India
Government responsible to the Crown and a higher national status for India in International and
imperial relations” should be granted.

This had the desired effect on the British Premier who promised to give careful attention to the
suggestions and send an answer in terms which could be made public.2

On February 2Ist and 22nd, 1942, the third session of the All Parties Leaders’ Conference was held in
which Churchill’s reply was read. Sir Tej said that the expansion of the Executive Council reflected
only a partial success of our demands. He urged that all portfolios must be held by Indians and White
Hall regime must end.3 Stressing the --------

219
Setalvad: Recollections and Reflections, p. 419.

2 Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 377, 1941-42, p. 203.

The Indian Annual Register, Vol: I, January—June, 1942,

pp. 304-306.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 853

importance of defence, Jayakar said, “This Government has proved itself absolutely incompetent to
conduct the war without the cooperation of the people.” “We want to tell the Government,” he
said, “move aside, we shall take charge of the conduct of the war, before it is too late.”‘

Later on, Churchill *announced on 11th March, 1942 that the “crisis in the affairs of India arising out
of Japanese advance has made Britain wish to rally all the forces of Indian Life to guard their land
from the menance of the invader”. In the same speech Churchill said, “we propose to send a
member of the War Cabinet to India to satisfy himself upon the spot by personal consultation.”2

The Cripps Mission & The Quit India Movement:—So Stafford Cripps came with his proposals on
March 22, 1942. In addition to the success of Japan and timely advice of these Liberal leaders, the
constant egging of the Liberal Party as a whole, the launching of the Satyagrah by the Congress,
Muslim intransigence for Pakistan and sullen attitude of the country in general were some other
factors which forced the British Government to send Sir Stafford to India.

The Cripps proposals were described by Mahatma Gandhi very aptly as “post-dated cheque on a
crashing bank”“ offering as they did to India the right to frame her own future constitution through
her own elected representative after the War with a similar right to dissident provinces subject to
agreement with Britain on all matters arising out of the transfer of power and for the protection of
racial and religious minorities. But as the existing Government was still to remain responsible for
defence during the War, the Congress again rejected the offer, and as is well known, soon
afterwards passed the “Quit India” resolution of August 8,

1 The Indian Annual Register, Vol. I, Jan.—June, 1942, pp.

308-309.

2 Parliamentary Debates,’ Vol. CCCLXXVIII, 1942, pp. 1069-70.

a Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. VI, p. 89. •

F. 45

A..HISTORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

1942. The very next morning, Gandhiji, and all other Congress leaders were arrested and the
Government of Linlithgow girded up its loins to crush the Congress movement that spread like

220
wildfire over the country. Dr. Ishwari Prasad has compared the ensuing political conflagration to the
state of affairs in France after the fall. of the Bastille or to the October Resolution in Russia and has
described the atrocities of the Government as surpassing those of Havelock and Neill in 1857.1

Liberal Reaction to Cripps Mission and its Rejection—Sir Tej and Mr. Jayakar submitted a
memorandum to Cripps (April 4, 1942) urging for the inclusion of an Indian Defence member to the
Viceroy’s Executive Council to reassure India about the reality of the proposals, and did not approve
of the provision for a second federation (of dissident provinces) which amounted in effect to clearing
the way for Pakistan, now the only demand of Jinnah and the League, and thus threatened the
integrity of the country. They asked that at least 65% of the Indian members of the Lower House
present at the meeting at which such a decision was to be taken should assent to it.2 A Liberal Party
deputation led by Sir B. P. Singh Roy, Setalvad and Bharucha also met Gripps (April 12, 1942)
supporting the Sapru-Jayakar memorandum except that it was willing to reduce the proportion of
assenting members to 55% and wanted the people of the States to have a voice in the selection of
States’ representatives to the constitution-making body and the inclusion of women in the
plebiscite.8

True to the Liberal tradition of availing of all offered opportunities and using them to press for more,
Setalvad deplored the rejection of Cripps’ Offer by the Congress as

1A History of Modern India, 1951, p. 458.

3 Indian Annual Register, Jan.—June, 1942, pp. 247-49. 3 Ibid., pp. 253-254.

UHE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 355

“the greatest disservice to the country”‘ because it deprived India of participating in the Post-War
Settlement to safeguard her own economic and other interests. It is difficult to understand this view
of Setalvad as the offer tacitly recognised the demand for Pakistan, endangered national unity,
admitted the feudal princely influence into the future legislatures and merely promised all this for
the future. Jawaharlal Nehru commenting on the Liberals could not help referring to the Liberals as
“Scribes and Pharisees....Ye blind guides which strain at a gnat. and swallow a camel.”2

In the deplorable situation arising after the ‘Quit India’ resolution of the Congress and the arrest of
the Congress leaders, the Liberals had again to perform the thankless task of mediation between the
Government and the Congress and circumstances again brought them to the forefront of the
political stage.

From 1942 to 1916 three major problems engaged their attention :

1. The setting up of a national government at the Centre.

2. Exploring ways and means to solve the communal tangle.

3. Unconditional release of Gandhiji and other Congress leaders to enable them to conduct
negotiations to solve the communal question and further the national cause. All other activities were
ancillary to these objectives.

221
Efforts at Reconciliation :—After the failure of Cripps’ mission and the ‘Quit India’ movement, the
first problem which the Liberal leaders had to face was Gandhiji’s fast

‘Reflections and Recollections, p. 397. 2 Autobiography, p. 415.

A HISTORY OF”rlIE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

*”which the latter had undertaken to vindicate the Congress position.’

On February 19, 1943 in a meeting held under the aegis of the All Party Leaders Conference, Sapru
said that, though opposed to civil disobedience by conviction, he felt that if Gandhi was released
unconditionally that would be the first preliminary’ steps towards reconciliation. Jayakar demanded
it in the interests of fairness and justice. Kunzru said that Gandhi was the biggest national asset the
like of whom was seen once in centuries. N. M. Joshi supported the resolution in the name of the
Trades Union Congress.2

The resolution was cabled to Churchill and Amery and Sapru got the reply that “there was no
justification for discrimination between Mr. Gandhi and other Congress leaders.’ ‘3

Again under the chairmanship of Sapru on February 20, 1943 a resolution was passed, a copy of
which was sent to the Viceroy who again refused to take action.

Sapru’s activities galvanised the Labourites in the House of Commons who asked for an early debate
in that connection.4 Amery declined the request and said “It (correspondence) contains no
indication that Mr. Gandhi sees cause for regret Nor is there any reason in this request for
discrimination between Mr. Gandhi and other Congress Leaders.”5 Thus the Liberal leaders failed to
secure

• ‘The fast was occasioned by the Viceroy’s refusal to jutsify his accusations against the Congress
leaders and to dicuss the matter with Gandhiji.

1 Gandhi’s letter to Viceroy, January 19, 1943, Tendulkar’s Mahatma, Vol. VI, pp. 234-235.

2 The Annual Register, Jan.—June, Vol. I, 1943, pp. 331-335.

3 Ibid., p. 236.

4 Sorenson’s question: Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. CCCLXXXVIII, 1943, p. 278.

6 Ibid., p. 278.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 357

Gandhiji’s release. Gandhiji broke his fast on March 3, 1943. But the Liberals had not learnt defeat.

On 22nd May, 1943, Sapru, Jayakar, Maheshwar Dayal Seth, etc. issued a statement urging the
appointment of an impartial tribunal to investigate the charges made against Congress Leaders now
in detention, or. in the alternative, the release of those leaders so as to enable them to review the
situation, and attempt a solution of the present deadlock.’ This line of approach brought success.

222
The Secretary of State replied in the House of Commons to Sorenson saying that “the Government of
India had no intention of ‘staging a trial’ of Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders who were
placed in detention.’

In the annual session of the National Liberal Federation held at Bombay in December 1943 two
important questions were stressed both in the Presidential Address by Sir Maharaj Singh and in the
main resolution moved by V. S. Srinivas Sastri— (i) Communal problem (ii) and release of political
prisioners. Sir Maharaj Singh expressed his own view that in the present circumstances “no final
decision can or should reasonably be expected in the midst of a world catastrophe on the question
of Pakistan”.

He suggested that contact with Congress leaders, especially Gandhiji, must be permitted and urged
upon the Govern-ment to release them unconditionally.3

Sastri said, “I do not know how a Government ruling over 400 million people armed to the teeth....
can tell the world and hope to be believed that it is not their function at all to interfere and that
their duty is to watch benevolently perhaps complacently, perhaps gleefully, while the leaders are
unable to come to a mu

1 The Annual Register, Jan.—June, Vol. I, 1943, pp. 343-345.

2 Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. CCCLXXXIX, 1943,

p. 1707.

8 Presidential Address, N. L. F., Bomba.y, 1943, p. 28.

tual understanding. A Government of that kind re-peating this absurd proposition seems to be con-
demning itself out of its own lips and I should be pitying the world if the world believes it.’’

Firm believers in constant agitation, the Liberals sought other sources to press their So Sapru in his
presidential address at the Non-Party Leaders Conference held at Lucknow on April 7, 1941 niged
release of Gandhiji and other Congress leaders and the convening of a national Conference for
solving the Communal problem.

He said that. people hoped that Home and Finance port-folios would be placed in Indian hands. The
hope had been defeated. lie deplored that though ten members of the Exe-cutive Council of
Governor-General were Indians, but they had no moral prestige in the country because its strings
were pulled by the Secretary of State who was responsible to the provinces and Centre to restore
constitutional governments and legislatures in the provinces and the national Government at the
Centre. He suggested coalition ministries in the provinces and said that communal questions could
he settled by negotiations and mutual discussions and not by ex-cathedra judgments nor by
demanding surrender to preconceived notions however honestly cherished.’

On the second day Kunzru, moving the resolution on the reconstruction of the Governor-General’s
Executive Council without delay as a true national government with a Prime Minister, said that the
present Executive Council was as ‘a museum of spineless men horn all parts of the country’ and

223
added that there should be people who enjoyed the confidence of the electorate at the head of the
administration.’

1 Presidential Address., N. L. F., Bombay, 1943, p., 57.

2 The Indian Annual Register, Vol. I, January—June, 1944, pp. 254-257.

8 I bi d , pp. 251-61.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 359

1 The Indian Annual Register Vol, I, January—June, 1944, pp. 259-61. •

P. N. Sapru. demanded release of Gandhiji and other leaders and said that they were avowedly anti-
Japanese even at the time when Sir Reginald Max-Well and others were flirting with and courting
Japan.

Winding tip the proceedings of the Conference Sir Tej attacked Churchill for his `die-hardism’.
“Sometimes I ask myself the question, ‘has the Prime Minister now changed, from a die-hard into a
Liberal politician’?” If Churchill had changed, would Amery have stayed as Secretary of State for India
and would Lord Linlithgow have continued as Viceroy of India?” “They ask us”, said Sir Tej, “what
following we have in the country my answer to them is : you shut up people with iodowing behind
the bars and ignore the rest, what arc we to do?” Sir Tej stated that the Government even Mooted
the Muslim league because it was not asked to form a government after Congress had resigned. He
felt that Gandhiji was the one man who could examine the situation fairly and squarely and had the
humility to approach others even though others might not like to ap-proach him.’

The Council of the National Liberal Federation held in Poona in June, 1944 made an appeal, on the
one hand, to the Government to release Congressmen not found guilty of violence and, on the
other, to the Congress to treat the August Resolution as a dead letter and to negotiate with other
parties for the formation of a provisional Government. In another meeting of the Council at
Allahabad in October 1944 the two-nation theory was condemned.

The Communal Problem :—The next problem to which the Liberal leaders addressed themselves was
to explore ways and means to solve the Communal issue. It was the greatest hurdle in the way of
national unity. It was a challenge to Indian statesmanship. In a speech in the Central Legis

lative Assembly, on February 17, 1944 Lord Wavell said, “You cannot alter Geography. From the
point of view of defence, of many external and internal economic problems, India is a natural unit.’
But Jinnah would not budge an inch from his stand. He had raised the ominous cry, “Divide and
Quit.” He did not want the issue of partition of the country to have been left to the parties, but
urged upon the British Government to put it through. After his release on May 6, 1944, Gandhiji, as
was expected of him, threw himself heart and soul into the solution of the Hindu-Muslim question.
Gandhiji had talks with Jinnah on the bafis of C. R. formula, but they ended in fiasco. His Majesty’s
Government wanted India to make a constructive suggestion. The Liberals constant dinning for the
establishment of national Government and for a move on the part of the Government to solve the
deadlock extracted a reply from Wave11 who said according to his definition that the present Indian

224
Government was doing national work. In regard to the demand for a move by His Majesty’s
Government to solve the deadlock, he said that it had been done twice—Act of 1935 and Cripp’s
Mission; now it was for India to make a suggestion. As regards ‘Quit India’ and ‘Satyagrah’ he
advised, “I do not believe that your condition calls for a serious operation, I should certainly try all
other possible remedies first. I do not think that the ‘Quit India’ mixture or these Satyagrah pills have
done you much good.’’2 He advised some fresh air and work in the fields for the patient. In other
words, he suggested it to Congress that ‘our best hope lies in working together’.

Conciliation Committee and its Proposals:—Just as on the previous occasion in 1928 Motilal Nehru
took upon himself the British Challenge to prepare draft Constitution for

I The Indian Annual Register, Vol. I, Jan.—June, 1944, p. 141.

2 Wavell’s speech in the Associated Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, Dec. 14, 1944; Animal Register;
Vol. 11, 1944, p. 261.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 861

India, Sir Tej took upon himself to make a last bid for the solution of Communal riddle. The Standing
Committee of the Non-Party Leaders Conference met under the presidency of Sir Tej in New Delhi on
November 19, 1944 and appointed a Committee to examine the whole communal and minority
question from a constitutional and political point of view. The Standing Committee authorised Sapru
to appoint. the members of the Conciliation Committee.’

Sapru had placed before Gandhiji at Wardha the idea of a Committee of the kind now decided upon.
Gandhiji welcomed it and said, You can call me whenever you like, put inc any questions you like and
ask Inc for any assistance you like”.’ Sapru denied that the Viceroy had anything to do with it. But he
accepted a suggestion that the discussion of the political and communal problem should be lifted
from the partisan level to scientific and judicial level.

This was why Sapru kept in mind this idea and included in the personnel such people as had no
partisan outlook and could bring to bear upon the controversial issues involved an open mind. The
Committee began its work on December 29, 1944 after an opening address by Sapru defining the
scope and functions of the Committee. “Our essential duty,” he said, “is to apply our minds to the
basis of the constitution, not to detailed provisions of the constitution.”

The Sapru Committee Proposals:—The constitution pro-posals of the Sapru Committee are
embodied in a big volume wherefrom some basic principles are given below to indicate the Liberal
views in respect of the burning topics of the day. One such question was the topic of Pakistan. Sapru
pleaded hard to induce Jinnah to accept thrice the amount of legal Muslim share in the future
governance of the country. The Committee examined the basis of Pakistan and its meaning,

1 Constitutional Proposals of the Sapru Committee, p. I. 2Annual Register, Vol. II, 1944, p. 240.

F. 46

C. R. formula and Gandhi formula, and arrived at the ccnelusion :

225
“It is clear that Pakistan whether whole,.

according to Mr. Jinnah’s idea, or truncated according to the C. R. formula, cannot be established
with the consent of parties and will meet with the strongest opposition. Arbitration has been ruled
out and is out of place when the fate of the entire country is to be decided. The only alternative for
enforcing Pakistan is either a British enforcement or civil war.”‘

Looked at even from the Muslim point of view the Committee held Pakistan would create two
isolated Muslim areas separated from each other by a large tract of territory under Hindustan.

Sir Homni Modi and Dr. Matthai in their memoran-dum said, “ .... it is clear that unless some
effective conti-nuous form of co-operation in matters relating to defence and economic
development is accepted as an indispensable pre-requisite to any scheme of separation and as an
organic part of it, the division of India into separate sovereignties would spell stagnation and
probable disaster.”2

• On grounds of defence,- the Committee held “leaving apart other major considerations, a division
of the country into two independent. states will endanger the safety of both and that there is no
justification for the British Government to support such a revolutionary scheme if they have genuine
faith in that unity of India which they have themselves built up and fostered.”8

“l’he Committee could visualize wit-di had come to pass six years after the establishment of
partition, viz., “How is it to be secured that Pakistan and Hindustan will not seek

1 Constitutional proposals of Sapru Committee, para. 186, p. 143.

2 Ibid., p. 144.

3 Ibid., p. 148.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 363

different allies ?’ Pakistan has sought a military alliance with U. S. A.

The report analysed Coupland’s scheme of Re

gionalism and characterised it as ‘fantastic,’ unmistakably academic’ and ‘removed from reality’.2

Looked at from different point of view the Report held, “. . partition of India.... is incompatible

with greatness. safety and economic development of the

country and will lead to constant internecine war or per

petual foreign domination. It multiplies and compli

cates the problem of minorities without solving it.”8

The Liberal view about Pakistan is well presented, accu-rately documented, unsentimental, logical
and scientific and

based on higher principles of democracy. The real differenCe

226
comes in where the Liberals came down to conciliate the Mus

lim League. The Committee recommended that separate

electorates should disappear and should be replaced by joint

general electorates with reservation of seats. Reservation of

seats itself was a far cry from democracy and the Committee

was very much alive to it, but they were deemed a necessary

half-way house between separate electorates and general electorates.

Nor was this all. In the interest of Communal harmony the Committee recommended parties of
representation in the

Central Legislative Assembly between Muslims and Hindus other than Scheduled castes.’ It was
clearly objectionable from the Hindu point of view because thereby one Muslim was to be regarded
as equal to two Hindus. But this consi

deration had to be got over in the larger interests of the

country. It was, however, emphasized by the Committee

The Sapru Committee, p. 148.

2 Ibid., p. 161. 8 Ibid., p. 161. 4 The Sapru Committee, para. 425, pp. 301-302.

that parity was confined to the Lower House of the Union Legislature and Executive alone and not
applicable to the Provincial Legislatures or Executives, or to the services or to the other fields of
administration.’

Again the Committee recommended the vesting of the residuary powers in the provinces. It was also
the opinion of the Muslims before the cry for Pakistan. Even the strong Centre whereby the Hindu
majority, though hamstrung by a parity clause, could exercise sonic control on constituent units of
the Union was sacrificed for the sake of peace and amity.2

Yet again, with a view to provide for representation of different communities in the Central
Executive the composite nature of Cabinet was recommended, but in the interest of harmonious
working “the Prime Minister’s choice of his colleagues is not to be fettered.”

Withal these concessions, the Committee did not forget to take exception to the secession clause in
the Cripp’s Offer as in its opinion such a provision amounted to the recognition of a revolt from and
repudiation of the Constitution. They stood for a single state.

The Quaid-i-Azam, however, felt that “Sir Tej Bahadur and his associates have been passing off
under different labels from time to time, first as ‘all party conference.’ then as ‘no party conference’,

227
and now they have assumed the label of ‘Conciliation Committee’. They are nothing but the
handmaids of Congress and have played and are playing the tune of Mahatma Gandhi..

The other aspect touched by the Committee was to solve the political impasse. It specifically held
that the establishment of the Indian Union should not be contingent on the accession to the
federation of any Indian state, or any mini

The Sapru Committee, p. 120.

2 Ibid., Appendix No 2, p. X, read with para. 211, pp. 170-171. Ibid., para. 283, p. 180.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 365

mum number thereof and that the paramountcy jurisdiction over the unfederated units should vest
in the New Union Centre.’ It further recommended that the head of the state would be
constitutional acting on the advice of the Ministry. It also recommended the Indianization of the
armed forces and that the disciplinary head, the C-in-Chief, should work under the orders of the
ministry.

While the Committee was in session Sir Tej sent a cable to Lord Wavell who had gone to London on
March 21, 1945,2 after the failure of Gandhi-Jinnah negotiations to end the deadlock. Mr. Churchill’s
Coalition Government fell on May 23, 1945 owing to the resignation of the Labour Minister. In his
message also Sir Tej pleaded for the release of all political prisoners and detenus, a Royal
proclamation to declare India as an Independent state and treated as a dominion, withdrawal of
section 93-Rule and restoration of popular ministries in the provinces and other demands which
later on took the form of the Committee’s proposals.

Finally the Committee appealed to all communities and parties to accept the proposals and said that
in the event of their being unacceptable, His Majesty’s Government should set up an interim
Government in India and proceed to establish machinery for drafting the new constitution on the
basis of the principles underlying these proposals, enact it in the Parliament and put it into operation
as early as possible.8

The Jubilee of the National Liberal Federation 1945:While the Liberal mind under different labels
was busy in devising means to unravel the communal tangle and advance the National Liberal
Federation, the chief forum of the Liberal Party held its Silver Jubilee Session at Lahore on 17th and
18th March, 1945 under the presidentship of T. R.

The Sapru Committee, Appendix No. 2, p. VII. 2Indian and Pakistan Year Book 1948, p. 950.

3 The Sapru Committee, Appendix No. II, Part IV, para. 121, pp. XV 8c XVI.

,* For details and reasonings behind these suggestions see the Report of the proceedings of N. L. F.,
Lahore, March 1945.

228
Venkatram Sastri of Madras. The Liberal Federation also touched among others on two main themes
of the hour— (1) communal (ii) and political problems. In regard to the latter problem, the Liberal
Federation urged :

(1) immediate declaration of the Status of a Dominion for India;

(2) release of political prisoners;

(3) to set up representative governments in states; and

(4) “to participate in solution of the present political deadlock and to promote the
establishment of a national government, both at the Centre and in the provinces.”

regards the Communal problem, the Federation

held :—

(I) ‘Pakistan is no solution of the problem of minorities.’

(2) The principle of self-determination raised by the Muslim League is dubious.

(3) The Federation suggested the adoption of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference formula for re-
solving Indian deadlock.*

In the meantime the stage was being set up in London for a better understanding of the Indian
problems. A big surprise was caused at the Labour Party Conference in London on December 15,
1944 when in defiance of the Executive, the delegates carried a resolution about India which
declared, “The Conference, being of the opinion that granting of the freedom to the people of India
to establish an Independent Indian National Government will be a decisive factor in the fight against
fascism and towards the unification of all anti-fascists forces, urged the immediate ending of politi

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 367

cal deadlock by negotiations with all leaders of all people.” It called for the release of Indian political
leaders.**

With the staggering of the National Government, India figured prominently in the British parleys. On
June 5, 1945, Lord Wavell returned to India. On June 14, he made the following proposals :

(1) 1 he new constitution must be framed by the Indians.

(2) The Viceroy’s Executive Council would be re-constituted so that all its members except the
Governor-General and Commander-in -Cli would be Indian political leaders, the caste Hindus and the
Muslims being equally represented. The portfolio of the External affairs would be transferred from
the Governor-General to an Indian Member of the Council.

(3) The personnel of the New Executive Council will be selected on the basis of the advice of the
party leaders, provincial premiers, ex-premiers, etc.

(4) Cooperation at the Centre will make possible the resumption of responsible government in
the Section-93 Provinces.

229
(5) ‘These changes will not in any way prejudice or prejudge the essential form of the future
perma-nent Constitutions of India.

A perusal would show that most of the proposals of the conciliation committee were adopted in the
Wavell Plan.

“ Charles Bridges said that India was like a great running sore in the side of the British
Commonwealth of Nations. Relating to the speech of the viceroy as Calcutta, cited above, he said,
“How could negotiations be conducted from the Indian side if the people who could put forward the
Indian views were inside prison dungeons?”

Mrs. Luck Middleton said, “Why can’t Mr. Churchill go to Delhi as well and there meet the Indian
leaders?”

Mr. Bevin declared, “If we are returned, we will close the India office and transfer the business to
the Dominion,” The Annual Register, July—Dec., Vol. II, 1941, pp. 312-313.

Even the Congress demand for a Constituent Assembly to frame the future constitution of India was
also accepted tacitly. A Conference of leaders was invited at Simla by Wavell. ‘The Viceroy had also
ordered release of the members of the working committee of the Congress. But on July 14, 1945, the
Viceroy announced the breakdown of the Conference.’

Liberal Reaction:—Setalvad, explaining the Liberal attitude towards all these events, maintains that
it was a great climb-down on the part of the Congress to agree to go to the Conference, though in
his opinion it ‘was wise’. He approved the position taken up by Wave11 in that he declined to accept
Jinnah’s claim to represent all Muslims of India. But he held that “the impasse thus created could
possibly have been resolved if the Congress had offered to include one or two nationalist Muslims in
their quota.”2 But Jinnah could never have agreed to any of these gestures of the Congress because
he was intent on Pakistan and held that the parity between Muslims and Hindus (except the
scheduled classes) was no parity for Scheduled class and Sikh representatives would side with the
Congress. But we hardly need deal with the course of these political negotiations further, because
during this period the Liberals as a party were not consulted by the parties concerned and with the
restoration of negotiations between the Congress and the Government their role of mediation was
practically fulfilled. The Silver Jubilee Session of National Liberal Federation at Lahore in 1945 and
the Conciliation Committee’s proposals may be taken as the final efforts by the Liberal mind to solve
the question of minorities and the political tangle. Thereafter, the Council of Liberal Federation at
times met at places

Negotiations broke down over the proposed lists of Executive Councillors on which no agreement
could be reached between the

Congress and Mr. Jinnah.

2 Setalvad’s Recollections and Reflections, pp. 401--402.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY A69

230
to pass resolutions, on day-to-day political questions till 16th August, 1947. But it was too feeble a
cry in the tumultuous wilderness of politics. The following is a resume of the important resolutions
of the Council of Liberal Federation.

Elections to the Provincial and Central Legislatures had been announced to be held in the cold
weather of 1945-46; and the Congress decided to contest the general elections. Jinnah’s sole
demand still was for Pakistan.

The Council of the National Liberal Federation held in Bombay in the winter of 1945 declared by a
resolution “that the proposals now adumbrated in the broadcasts of the Prime Minister and Viceroy
are incomplete and must wait for the elections and consultations with the elected representatives to
take their final shape....”

“Immediately after the elections,” the resolution went on, “a Central Government should be formed
consisting of the representatives of the major political parties and no refusal of cooperation by any
party should hold up the formation of such representative government.”‘

Setalvad suggested a long-term view that the parties ought to be based on ‘principles and
programmes’ and not on religion. “This can be done,” he affirmed, “however slowly, for instance, by
giving persons who are in separate electorates the option of going into the general register by a
voluntary declaration.”2

In regard to the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Council of the National Liberal Federation in a meeting at
Poona in July 1946 made an appeal to all the major political parties to enter the Constituent
Assembly frankly and fully accepting the basic principles and the necessary implications of

1 Indian and Pakistan Year Book, 1948, p. 956.

2 Setalvad’s Recollections and Reflections, p. 404. F.

8.

the Cabinet Mission’s plan. The Council warned that if this were not done, the consequences would
be fatal. It further said :—

“While the Muslims were asked not to consider the use of the Constituent Assembly as a mere
stepping stone to the achievement of Pakistan, the Congress was asked not to act in the spirit of the
announcement of its President that the Congress was committed to nothing except going into the
Constituent Assembly.”‘

We get no further material to find out the reactions of the All India National Liberal Federation to
further events except two resolutions one of which was passed in Poona, after the H. M. G. Plan of
June 1947 under the presidentship of T. R. Venkatram Sastri expressing its deep regret that it had
not been possible to evolve a plan for the achievement of freedom of India which would also
maintain its unity. “A division of the Country”, in the opinion of the Council “was contrary to its
economic and strategic interests and would weaken the country’s position in the international
sphere.”2 The Council, however, trusted that as partition was accepted by the major parties, the

231
Government concerned “will act in a statesmanlike manner and enter into treaties which would
safeguard the interests of the country as a whole particularly those relating to economic and
defence matters.” The Council also welcomed the participation of many states in the Constituent
Assembly and hoped that the remaining states would, in their own interests and those of India,
decide to join the Assembly.

The other resolution of the Council was passed on Kashmir in its meeting held in Poona on June 27,
1948 under the same president, Mr. Sastri, charging ‘the government of Pakistan with organised
raids and supporting attacks on Kashmir with its own army. The Council also condemned

1.2-3 Indian and Pakistan Years Book, 1948, p. 1957.

THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY 371

Razakar attacks on Hindus in Hyderabad and asked “the Government to take swift and effective
action”.’

Thus we see that after the Silver Jubilee Session in 1945 the general body of the National Liberal
Federation could not meet. The Liberal Madras Leader, Mr. T. R. Venkat-ram Sastri, held according to
convenience of the people con-cerned, the meetings of the Council. But they had no effective voice
in the moulding or influencing the public opinion or the government attitude. It was decided to hold
a session of All India National Liberal Federation in Decem-ber 1948 in the Christmas week. Sir
Cowasji Jehangir was elected chairman of the Reception Committee. The meeting was to discuss the
future of the Liberal Party.

It was also heard that at the next session the Party would dissolve itself, but later on that report was
denied. As a matter of fact there was nothing to dissolve. This last meeting of the Federation does
not appear to have been held, and in the words of the old epigram that “old soldiers never die; they
fade out,” the gallant. band of Liberalism faded out of the political scene on India’s attainment of
freedom.

Review:—We have thus reached the end of our ex-haustive review of the mediatorial activities of
the Liberal Statesmen in the long period of political instability in India from 1923 to 1947. It began
with the rejection of Dyarchy even by the Liberals and ended with the achievement of Dominion
Status by India and the eventual establishment of the Republic of the Indian Union within the
Commonwealth.

It is clear from the foreging review that while voicing the National Demand during these
interminable discussions of the period, the Liberals said much the same things as the Congress about
it with the recurrent exception that they always thought in terms of Dominion Status with some

‘Indian and Pakistan Year Book, 1949, p. 491,

A HISTORY OF TIME INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

degree of tutelary supervision of certain departments of government by British for a limited period
of time., On the other hand, they were uncompromising opponents of the partition of the country.

232
The party was thus coming closer to the Congress stand in regard to India’s future than even before.
The boycott of the Simon Commission by them amounted even to the adoption of the political
methods of the Gandhian Congress.

The middle path of moderation and conciliation which they treaded even in this period, however,
still laid upon them the duty of “mediating” between the Government and the Congress. As we have
seen above, they discharged this duty with notable patriotism and ability, at the Round Table
Conferences, in the crisis of Gandhiji’s fast unto death over the Communal Award, and in the
enactment of the Act of 1935. The Sapru ‘Cotmnittee’s Constitutional Proposals provided an able
blue-print of the future constitutional framework of the country. Acceptance of the Partition of the
country in 1947 made much of these proposals redundant later on, but they still remained a
monument to Liberal perspicacity and patriotism.

Their main work in this period was that of mediators and it can be claimed that in this work they
rendered a service of vital importance both to the Congress and the country, and to the British
Government of the day. It was their devoted labour for bringing about better understanding
between the main contestants that ultimately shaped the main features of the Cabinet Mission Plan.

CHAPTER X: LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES

Having reviewed in the foregoing chapters the genesis, the growth, the ideals and the achievements
of the Indian Liberal Party in general, it is desirable to take at one place a stock of the achievements
and failures of the Party which lie scattered in different chapters.

In the political field, the achievements of individual liberals and the Liberal Party were varied and
manifold. In fact, the conception of liberty and equality in the modern sense of the terms was for the
first time inculcated in Indian minds by the Liberal Leaders. Prior to the preaching of this political
gospel by the Liberals, liberty signified merely a certain measure of tolerance allowed in the worship
of one’s own God. Liberty as a positive concept of democracy was almost non-existent. The Liberals
imported this concept into Indian polity from the West. In fact, the whole idea of democracy with
ancillary institutions in their modern framework, is exclusively the gift of the Liberals to the nation.
Along with the introduction of the idea of parliamentary democracy into Indian politics, the Liberals
prepared the field also for its plantation and growth. The social atmosphere in which this seedling
was planted in India, was at first uncongenial. So, the Liberals had to create a favourable atmosphere
for it also. It was exclusively to their credit that the country came to know what public life, public
spirit and public opinion meant. They organised the society along new lines. They laid down the
foundations of associations which later on proved to be the nurseries of the existing party system.
Raja Ram Mohan and his successors by organising protestant Hinduism stimulated even the or

, 373

thodox to organise themselves into a separate camp. This process helped public opinion to
crystallise.

Public life and public spirit were yet to be born in India of the first half of the 19th century. Public life
was identified with heterodoxy, and public spirit lay smothered under a pall of selfishness and

233
sycophancy. The Liberals at great personal sacrifice endeavoured to organise the one and reanimate
the other. The beginnings of these social virtues made their appearance in activities which would not
even catch our notice today. English education inspired its votaries to assemble in academic
associations to discuss social subjects such as ‘hollowness of idolatry’, ‘shams of priesthood’, ‘the
nobility of patriotism’, ect., under the guidance and direction of liberal-minded foreign teachers like
Henry Vivian Derozio (1809-1831) of the Hindu College. Public life operated then in small students’
organisations as set up in Bengal, or “Students’ Literary and Scientific Society” formed by
Elphinstonians with Prot. Patton as President and Dadabhai as Treasurer in 1848, of the Gujarati
Dnyan Prasarak Mandali with Dadabhai as Chairman and the Marathi Dnyan Prasarak Mandali, or in
pledges taken by each Elphinstonian to use his own influence with the members of his own family to
get one pupil at least or in Dadabhai’s rounds with a friend to persuade parents to allow them to sit
on their verandahs and teach three R’s to their girls, or in activities of the Lahore Government
College trio—Lajpat, Guru Datta and Hansraj—such as ‘crusading for Hindi in 1882, or in publication
of magazines, pamphlets, papers or in political melas or political tours, etc.

Academic Associations gave birth to political ones. Feeding on the discontent prevailing in the
country on account of poverty and being shut out from any control over their country, the Liberals
founded the Indian National Congress “as an overt and constitutional channel for the dis-charge of
increasing ,ferment due to the creation of the

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 375

Western ideas and education .... “1* Thus step by step, by cautious movement, the Liberals
proceeded first as individuals, then through local associations, provincial organisations, and lastly all
India bodies to organise public life, create a public spirit and strengthen public opinion.

In addition to this organisational work, the Liberals fixed a certain political goal and adumbrated
from time to time certain policies and programmes to achieve these objec-tives. This initiative set
the nation a-thinking and gave the thoughtful among the patriots an opportunity to choose different
goals and mark out different ways to reach them. The idea of Swaraj and the plans to achieve it were
the fruits of the Liberal genius. It was the Liberal conviction that the British were a justice-loving and
fair-minded people and that it was an act of God that India came under their possession and that
connection with the British would not only solve all the problems of India but would always remain a
blessing to her and also to England. This faith received several tremendous shocks but was never
quite extinguished even by the mightiest political storms. One great virtue of this steady faith was
that despite the manoeuvrings of die-hard Tories, the British Liberal and Labour opinion in England
always remained, on the whole, friendly to India and it was mainly owing to their intercession that
India could get constitutional reforms from time to time. The Liberal method of constitutional
agitation as opposed to direct action was the right way to secure British sympathy, since it was the
British way of achieving political reforms.

The Liberal Congress had not only done the vital task of formulating policies and determining the
distant goal, but also launched campaigns and organised public opinion on a national scale. The well-
known Swadeshi movement against

1 Wedderburn: A. 0. Hume, p. 77.

234
* See Chapter IV of this book, p. 96.

the Partition of Bengal and many another gallant crusade in domestic politics were exclusively the
work of the Liberals, to begin with.

Much spade work had been done by Dadabhai, Ranade, Mehta, Gokhale, Surendranath, etc., before
Gandhiji appeared in the political arena to play his role—unique in its nature and unprecedented in
its make-up. Gandhiji’s work lay not in originating the national movement but in reorientating it on
quite a new basis and in canalising the accumulated energy of the nation for work in a new direction.

If we review the constitutional growth of the country from 1833 to 1935, we come across a great
spiral of progress in the political evolution of the country, which was mainly, if not exclusively, the
work of the Liberal Party for which they received stones of opprobrium more than flowers of
laudation from their countrymen. The Charter Act of 1833, in the framing of which Raja Ram Mohan
Roy did his best to obtain many administrative reforms, declared the Governor of Bengal as the
Governor-General of India and thus, for the first time, laid the beginning of the Government of India.
After the Indian Mutiny and the transfer of power from the Company to the Crown, the Legislative
Council was recons• tituted by the Indian Councils Act of 1861. To some of the seats Indians were
also nominated and therefore from 1861 an Indian element began to take part in the making of laws
for India. The next stage was reached in the Act of 1892 by which a ‘limited and indirect’ provision
was made for the use of the method of election in filling up some of the nonofficial seats both at the
Centre and in the provinces. The functions of the Councils were enlarged. Whatever good, bad or
indifferent results were achieved under this Act of 1892 was wholly due to the efforts of the Liberals.
If Ram Mohan extorted concessions from the British Government in the Act of 1833, Dadabhai did
the same for the Act of 1861, when he was in England merely as an Indian businessman,

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 377

and more for the Act of 1892 when he was a member of the Parliament.

The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 made, as we have seen, a very considerable advance.’ The
Provincial Legislative councils got increased opportunities of influencing policy by putting
supplementary questions and moving reso-lutions on subjects of public interest, subject, however,
to too many exceptions. The Act of 1909 withal its numerous defects bears a clear impress of the
work of Gokhale.

But an examination of the entire structure of the Government before the Act of 1919 forces one to
the conclusion of the Simon Report that in all these Acts authority was concentrated at the Centre,
that the Executive exercised control over legislative functions and that for the whole of Indian
Government the ultimate responsibility rested with Parliament.2 But by the Act of 1919, to work
which the Liberals cut themselves adrift from the Congress Party for ever, the provinces got a certain
measure of independence, the control of the Centre over the provinces and that of the Parliament
over the Government of India as a whole was re-laxed to a considerable degree. To this
consummation the Indian Liberals had made, as we have shown in Chapter VI, no mean contribution
by their persistent agitation for a decade, by their assiduous cultivation of British good-will to India
for over a generation, and by their advice and counsel to Government in the Indian legislatures,

235
numerous committees and commissions, and before Parliamentary bodies, Indubitably the timing,
the character and the extent of these concessions and reforms would not have been what it was but
for the devoted labours of Mehta, Gokhale, Sastri and others.

Dyarchy, as the Provincial Constitution under the Act of 1919 is called, was the sum-total of Liberal
achievement thus

1 Cf. Chapter VI of this book, pp. 161-62.

2 Report of the Indian Statutory Cornmillsion, Vol. I, p. 111, F.

far and it obtained, in black and white, from the British Government the Declaration of 1917
promising ‘progressive realisation of responsible government.’

Under this Act the Liberals both at the ‘Centre and in the provinces rendered yeoman service to the
cause of the nation, although they had to battle not only against the Government but against more
popular exponents of the will of the nation. A review of the first phase of Indian politics at the
Centre between (1920-23) reveals a record of real contribution of the Liberals in the Central
Assembly to the cause of the nation. It secured the repeal of legislation which Indian opinion
regarded as repressive and the abolition of racial discrimination in criminal trials. The Liberal Party
inside the Assembly brought effective pressure to bear on the Government for the Indianization of
the Army and on tariff policy. Moreover, they established a convention by which the Executive had
to submit such important taxes as income tax and salt duty for the approval of the Asssembly in an
Annual Finance Bill.

The Provincial legislatures dominated by the Liberal Party used their powers to make local bodies a
more effective training ground for larger and wider political responsibilities. Almost all the provinces
showed the same trends by their legislative enactments regarding local bodies, e.g., lowering of the
franchise, increasing the elected element to the extent of making a local body the unquestioned
immediate arbiter of policy in local affairs and of placing executive power therein in non-official
hands.

In the field of Education, the work of the Liberal Ministers was not less notable. They had inherited a
system which was far from satisfactory and no fair estimate of their achievement can be had, unless
large allowance is made for this initial handicap. Despite public apathy, the formidable obstacles
arising from caste and communal feelings, and acute paucity of funds, the Liberal ministers took up
the task of

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 379

spz4ading education among the masses of India. They tried to reorganise education at different
stages for different sections of society and, with the limited amount of funds at their disposal, their
work in this field should be taken more as an attempt to lay the foundations of future educational
progress under more favourable conditions, than as a revolu-tionary achievement. Apart from their
positive legislative and executive achievements, the dignity and the integrity of their administration

236
of public affairs under Dyarchy should be counted as one of their most creditable services to the
country.

The Act of 1935 secured for the country full Provincial Autonomy, though with some reservations;
and although in Pandit Nehru’s phrase it was “all brakes and no engines,” it had substance enough to
induce even the dissenters to accept office. It cannot be denied that the credit for several of its
distinctive features should be given to the Liberal statesmen who participated in the three Round
Table Conferences and numerous other committees and sub-committees and spared no pains to
wheedle out all they could from the British. The federal form of the constitution contemplating the
absorption of Indian states into the Union of India was ham-mered out by the Liberals in their
negotiations with the Princes at the said Conferences. The concept of an integra-ted India including
‘British’ and `Indian’ India both, on certain terms, was for the first time envisaged by Liberal
statesmanship. This served as a stepping-stone to the policy of consolidation launched by the late
Sardar Patel who tried to make amends for what the country lost by partition. In this respect Sir Tej
should be considered as the father of the existing Union of India.

The Liberal point of view in politics served as a political barometer both to the British rulers and to
other Leftist parties of India and both tried to adjust themselves according to its rise and fall. Liberal
opposition to a measure in

dicated to the Government the extent to which it could’ go. Even in their mediatorial role, they
served as a barke to prevent matters going from bad to worse. From the period of the Round Table
Conferences where the Liberals directly negotiated with the Government in behalf of the entire
nation to the period that followed the Second World War, except from 1937 to 1939, the Liberal
Party dominated the entire field of Indian politics and it was due to their medi-ation that many
political deadlocks could be resolved. Sapru and Jayakar became the nation’s Arch Conciliators. A
perusal of the British Parliamentary debates will show how prominently the activities of Sir Tej
figured in the speeches of the Commons and the Lords. But for all their intercession in favour of the
Government proposals, the Liberals did not forget to derive every bit of advantage likely to
strengthen the nation, such as appointment of an Indian Defence minister and Indianization of
military services. In this context Sapru’s Constitutional proposals for solving the communal tangle
will ever remain a monument of the highest statesmanship and all that this veteran statesman
envisaged as to the results of the partition of the country has been justified by the experience of the
last eleven years.

In this connection one more ‘Liberal’ achievement cannot be overlooked. It was owing to their
constant efforts that Indians were admitted into the inner counsels of the British Government in
India. It might appear as a trifle today but its importance can be realized by the fact that when R. C.
Dutt proposed in 1899 at the Lucknow Congress from the chair the resolution to urge the
appointment of Indians to Executive Councils, it had to be withdrawn since it was thought to be too
radical, and even the Extremist leader, B. G. Tilak, did not press for itl An immense amount of
epistolary ink had to be used by Minto and Morley before Sir K. G. Gupta and Mr. Syed Husain
Bilgrami were for the first time appointed to the India Office in 1907! After 1909,

LIDERA!. ACHIEVZIAULNTS AND VAILUVIS 38 I

237
Iliclians were freely admitted to posts of responsibility and confidence. Sir Tej and Sri P. S.
Sivaswamy Aiycr served on the Executive Council of the Governor-General during the most stormy
days of Indian politics. Men of tried excellence got high offices of executive councillors, ministers,
Privy Councillors, judges, acting chief justices, members of House of Lords, parliamentary under-
secretary, the governor of a province, etc.

It may be added that nearly all these offices were worthily filled by Liberal statesmen who tried to
serve the Indian nation while serving the Government. In the discharge of their duties appertaining
to these various offices, they acquitted themselves with brilliant efficiency, tact, initiative, discretion
and integrity which could do credit to the citizens of any free country.

National work was with a Liberal patriot an imperative obligation. With the rank and file of the party,
however, generally it was not allowed to interfere with or encroach upon personal or class interests.
The Zamindars among the Liberals were nationalists, if their nationalism was not likely to imperial
their landed interests. In the passing of the U. P. District Board Amending Act (1922) there was a
tough fight over the taxation clause which required the zantindars to bear the whole burden of a
certain percentage of taxation exclusively, but they—some of them being staunch Liberals—did not
rest content till it was agreed to that a certain portion of it would pass on to their tenants also. The
leadership of the party, however, always exhibited a single-minded devotion to national interests as
they interpreted them, and was as a rule above the claims of individual or class interests. We have
only to mention the names of Gokhale, Sapru, Sastri, Paranjpye, N. M. Joshi, H. N. Kunzru, S. G. Vaze
and many more to illustrate this point.

In the economic field, the achievements of the Liberals are by no means insignificant. Here the
success of the

Presidential Address, N. L. F., Nagpur, 1935, p. 25.

Liberal effort cannot be assessed by reference to any specific economic or industrial legislation, as is
possible in relation to the Liberal Party in England, except after 1921. In the case of the Indian
Liberals and their Party their achievements are to be assessed by the measure of consciousness of
economic evils which they aroused among the educated classes to fight against the exploitation of
the country. There is no gain-saying the fact that it is to them that we owe the first protests against
the economic ‘drain” to which the country was subjected under British rule, and against the various
devices adopted by the alien Government to bolster up British economic interests in India to the
detriment of indigenous industries.

It is difficult to discover any uniform idealogy behind the economic and industrial principles of the
Indian Liberal Party. It is not possible to dub them straight-away as free traders or protectionists;
socialists or individualists, supporters of a planned economy or believers in individual enter-prize.
They are neither pro-labourer nor pro-capitalist exclusively but tried to serve and support both
interests according to the changing situation. T. R. Venkatram Sastri in his address at Nagpur made
the ‘Liberal’ stand-point clear in these words : “Liberalism, unlike socialism, reserves freedom of
judgment in each case on the merits without a fetish of nationalisation as applicable in all
circumstances and to all departments of economic life. Fair conditions of life and Fair distribution of

238
the profits of industry as between capital and labour must be secured if need be by careful
legislation”.’

But even in this field, and probably to a greater degree here than elsewhere, they did the pioneering
work for the later nationalists. The instance of Swadeshi may be cited here, though it was devised as
a temporary measure against the Partition of Bengal. It was a Liberal expedient to begin

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 383

with and later formed the chief plank of the Gandhian programme.

The Liberal party also took up the work of Labour Organisation and helped the working classes in the
country in forming themselves into Trade Unions. The Liberal Party made continuous efforts both
through its social organisation and through work in the legislatures. The Poona Seva Society tried to
bring education and certain other amenities of life within the reach of poor labouring women. It sent
out mid-wives to attend free of charge on poor people. The Servants of India Society performed a
very valuable function in focussing public attention upon the need for better housing, food supply
and the medical aid, educational facilities, etc., and help against indebtedness of labourers in all
large industrial centres. The Servants of India Society furnished a number of helpful Labour Leaders
like N. M. Joshi, R. R. Bakhale and Shiva Rao. Srinivas Sastri, who devoted much time to the
questions of Indians in South Africa, was a member of the Royal Commission on Labour in India, in
1931. N. M. Joshi, in addition to being the General Secretary of the All India Trade Union Congress
and President of the G. I. P. Railway Staff Union, serve either as President or Treasurer of eleven
other Unions. He had been very active on behalf of Labour since the World War I. He attended the
Washington Labour Conference as a labour delegate and took part in a number of other inter-
national labour gatherings. As a member of the Central Legislative Assembly he worked hard for
legislation to ame-liorate the lot of Indian workers very much similar to that in England. He was also
the member of Royal Commission on Labour in India in 1931. Daniel H. Buchanan avers that “he
(Joshi) has been one of the principal influences for moderation against the avowedly Communist
group”.1 But

1D. A. Buchanan: The Development of Capitalist Enterprise

in India (Macmillan, New York, 1934), p, 437.

the same writer remarks that the labour movement under the leadership of the Servants of India
Society was not so effective like that under the leadership of Gandhiji and Anusuya Sarabhai,
because the control of the former “was never so complete and they had no such commanding figure
behind them as Gandhiji.”1

The National Liberal Federation of India at its annual sessions pressed on Government to legalise
trades unions on the lines of English legislation and to amend the factory acts to establish better
conditions for labour in respect of wages, hours of work, housing, health, education, unemployment,
old age, sickness, special concessions to women and children and other measures for economic
betterment. Individual leaders like B. P. Wadia, assistant Editor of ‘New India’, Dr. Annie Besant’s
daily, organised the textile workers of two European-owned mills of Madras and secured for them

239
the mid-day statutory interval of half an hour for food allowed to workers who had then twelve
hours working day extended to forty minutes. Wadia wrote in 1918 that “the masses do possess a
political outlook, but they have lost the art of making themselves heard and our task should be to
persuade them into speed and action”.2 Even before Wadia, another liberal worker in Bombay in
1889, N. M. Lokhande, had already achieved some measure of success in improving the condition of
women and children in the textiles mills of that city by obtaining a weekly holiday for them. This
measure of success may appear to be ludicrous today, but it was then a great achievement.

It is true that Liberal politicians availed themselves of the emergence of several factors in the post-
war period which helped them in organising the workers, such as, the new ferment of ideas, rise in
prices and consequent economic dis

1 Buchanan: p. 441.

2 Quoted in ‘The Industrial Worker in India, by B. Shiva Rao, (Allen & Unwin, London, 1938), p. 15,

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 385

tress and the ravages of the influenza epidemic of 1918. The establishment of the International
Labour Office, coinciding with the M. C. Reforms, also improved the position of Labour in India. The
Liberal legislators in the Central Assembly also found the Government of India’s attitude quite
sympathetic towards their attempts at labour legislation. This sympathetic attitude “was adopted
partly under pressure from Indian and English philanthropists and partly at the behest of Lancashire,
lest lack of labour regulation should result in embarrassing competition”.1 The I. L. O. at Geneva also
exercised a moral pressure on Government.2

The All India Trade Union Congress was set up in 1920 under Liberal leadership with a view to co-
ordinate the work of the Trades Union Movement, provide a meeting ground to the working classes
and a platform to enunciate a consistent labour policy. The Trades Union Congress continued its
work till 1929, when a schism occured in the organisation. Liberal leaders like N. M. Joshi, Diwan
Chaman. Lal, B. Shiva Rao and V. V. Giri severed their connection with the parent body and set up a
new organisation called the All India Trade Union Federation.

In addition to these achievements, the Liberals were equally awake to other needs of Indian society.
Nearly every Liberal leader was a social reformer. This was not so with many other nationalists. Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, whose record of service to the motherland was perhaps second to none and whose
share in the enlargement of Indian liberty can hardly be equalled and never surpassed, put a spoke
in the wheel of social progress. The Liberals felt from the beginning that to make an attempt for
political liberty and wink at social servitude was like the ignorance of a patient who wants to
stimulate his brain by injection and

1 Buchanan: Capitalist Enterprise in India, p. 442.

2 B. Shiva Rao: The Industrial Workor in India, p. 36, F. 49

P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer: ‘Indian Constitutional Progress’, (Madras. 1928), p. 322.

240
suffers his heart to sink for want of proper treatment. They understood the mutual importance of
both the aspects of liberty for human progress and never allowed the social cause to suffer for want
of proper care. Telang, Ranade, Bhandarkar, Gokhale, K. Natarajan, etc., worked for social freedom
as much as for political liberty. Reports of Social Conferences organised by them bear an eloquent
testimony to the amplitude and nature of their social services.

Though the Liberals were prepared to admit the necessity for reforms in the social system, they did
not subscribe to the view that social reform must precede political reform. “It is a fallacy to
suppose”, writes P. S. Sivaswami Aiyer, “that social reforms are a condition precedent to any political
changes”.1 But, as practical statesmen, they knew that one of the serious objections to political
advance was that our society was socially backward; and that that objection could be met better by
deeds than by mere words. So, since the days of Raja Rammohan Roy, several socio-religious
organisations and individual Liberals addressed themselves to the task of social reform and achieved
considerable success. It was due to the personal example and exhortations of the Liberal social
reformers that objections to sea-voyage and foreign travel were ultimately overcome. Inter-dining
and inter-marriage hitherto held as taboo, came into being in larger cities. Inter-marriages between
sub-sections of the same caste began to occur frequently. Postpuberty marriages increased from
year to year. Widow marriages became much more common in different parts of the country. Even
‘pratiloma’ marriages, though rare, took place and all legal impediments to such marriages were
removed by the legislation passed by the Central Assembly in 1923 at the instance of Sir Hari Singh
Gour, a Liberal by instinct, if not by

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES $8/

stamp. The activities of the Shuddhi movement of Arya Samajis, quite in line with the liberal outlook,
brought about the adaptation of Hindu society to modem conditions. The conversion of Miss Miller
to Hinduism under the auspices of the Jagat Guru Sankaracharya indicated the advance of Liberal
thought.

The name of K. Natarajan, the editor of the Indian Social Reformer, an indefatigable warrior of
Liberal School of Thought, will go down in history for brilliant success in his anti-nautch movement in
South India. Through the columns of his paper he launched a campaign against this evil and his
efforts were crowned with success.

The position of untouchables also improved. Although in this sphere a greater credit ought to go to
Gandhiji, yet work in this direction had long been started by the Liberals and even Gandhiji’s anti-
untouchability movement. received ready response from the Liberal Party. Much of the success
gained in the movement for the uplift of the depressed classes among the town populations is
attributable to the Liberals, though in rural areas whatever change came was due to Gandhiji’s
influence.

The education of girls had even been considered an imperative duty by the Liberals. Their efforts in
this direction made female education popular in this country. A great many womens’ Colleges were
started by Liberals workers and many caste women took to the professions of teaching and
medicine.

241
It is to the Liberals that we owe the promotion of English education in all its branches and aspects in
India. This one contribution alone is enough to raise the Liberal Party to the status of the foremost
nationalist party of the country, for much of our social and political progress is attributable mainly to
this one factor. Education fostered in India a capacity for understanding and forming intelligent
opinions on all civic and political issues and provided leadership in

the sociopolitical field and efficiency in administration. In this connection the findings of Hartog
Committee,’ which among others consisted. of two of its members, Narendra Nath and Mrs.
Muthulakshmi Reddi, of Liberal views are greatly helpful.

Raja. Ratrunohan Roy, the father of Liberalism, assisted by David Hare and Alexander Duff was the
first to have raised his voice for introduction of English medium. He paved the way for Macaulay’s
Minute of 1835 which clinched the issue in favour of English education. In 1921, as described at
some length in Chapter VII and indicated elsewhere in the present chapter, the Liberal ministries
took up the responsibility for education in the Governors’ Provinces. Despite stupendous obstacles
the Liberal Ministers and after their example their successors under dyarchy made a phenomenal
advance since the inception of the M/C. Reforms.’

Statistics reveal that with the transfer of responsibility to Liberal ministries the expenditure on this
head shot up from 2.93 crores in 1917 to Rs. 5.09 crores in 1922. The ‘Liberal’ achievement is
observable also in the intense interest which people took in the question of education and in the
readiness with which the legislatures tried to find funds to

- -’- • ^

1 Published in October, 1929, with an Interim Report of the Commission CMD, 3407.

2 In 1917 the total school-going population of British India attending primary classes numbered
6,404,200. In 1922 it had risen to 6,897,147 and to 9,347,617 in 1927. The figures of expenditure on
primary education show an equally remarkable increase since the M/C. Reforms, they are given
below:—

Year 18

19

19

19

19

19

1927

Annual Ex-penditure

242
in crores 1’

1.

1.

2.

2•

5.

6.95

(Educational Report, p. 43).

Indian Statutory Cammission Report, Vol. I, p. 384.

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 389

finance it and the eagerness of the Ministers to provide increasingly wider facilities to the people.

Another achievement of the Liberals in this field was the initiation of the idea of universal
compulsory education. It is remarkable that the concept of compulsion was not received with
disfavour. It was welcomed by ordinary citizens. The Simon Commission Report points out: “It is
most significant that in Bombay, for instance, the Government is faced by a local demand for
compulsory education which, for financial reasons, it is quite unable to satisfy.”‘ That the idea of
compulsion was acceptable to the common people appears to be the highest achievement of the
Liberals and indicative of the people’s traditional love of learning.

According to the Simon Report there was an increase of nearly 25 p.c. in the numbers attending
secondary institutions for boys and 50 p.c. in the numbers attending universities in ten years 1917-
1927.2 Beside this increase in numbers, under the popular minister’s regime signs were visible “that
the schools do and will respond to endeavours to humanise them and make them instruments of
social training and real education... . “3 Attempts were made to develop courses with a practical bias
and the traditional academic curriculum was broadened. Physical training, games, scouting, school
co-operative societies, music and school bands became popular. On the evidence of the Hartog
Committee we know that “of the general excellence of material in Indian secondary schools for boys
those of us who have lived in the country can speak with confidence.”‘ This statement is endorsed by
the Simon Report.5 In organisational matters

Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, p. 387. 2 Ibid., pp. 387-88.

$ Ibid., p. 389.

*Education Report, p. 119.

6 Indian Statutory Commission Report, Vol. I, p. 389.

243
also,..the secondary education system showed, signs of improvement. C. Y. Chintamani, in the U. P.
passed the Board of High School and Inter Education Act in 1921 which fieed secondary education
from the undesirable dominance of the University over both of its objectives and curriculum and
entrusted it with perfect freedom of action with regard to matters of purely educational character
within its sphere.

University education also witnessed a large expansion both in enrolment and number of universities.
Private benefactions poured in for the provision of university edu- • cation. Universities became the
object of the generosity of wealthy men.’ In respect of re-inforceinent, if not the replacement, of the
old type of Indian university, with its large numbers of affiliated but scattered Colleges, by unitary
teaching universities properly equipped for advanced study and research, some progress has been
made.2 The Liberal ministers tried to implement the recommendations of the Sadler Commission on
Calcutta University of 1917-19 as a result of which as many as seven new unitary universities sprang
up and courses up to the intermediate were separated from the university and intermediate
teaching was provided in separate institutions under school conditions and discipline. Teaching of
the Universities and Colleges also improved and the traditional mass-lecturing was supplemented by
tutorial classes. In the U.P., G. Y. Chintamani, on the lines suggested by the Sadler Commission,
introduced an experiment and changed the character of Allahabad University from federating to a
unitary type. The experiment proved to be a grand success and all that the university has been able
to achieve is mostly due to that change.

Further a still more remarkable feature of the progress of higher education was that universities
were de-official

1 Education Report, p. 140.

2 Indian Statutory Conimission Report, Vol. I, p. 390.

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 391

ized. Such freedom proved conducive to national growth and the progress of the Liberal outlook. De-
officialization, eagerness of the rich class to expand higher education, increasing interest of the
people in education, etc., breathed a new spirit amongst the people of not only of one community
but between those of different communities. This circumstance brought to bear upon the
contemporary politics and society a very salubrious influence.

Uuder the Liberal regime, there was marked im-provement in the education of the depressed classes
also. The Simon Commission Report expressed appre-ciation of the attitude of provincial
Governments to-wards the education of the depressed classes since they had issued emphatic
orders designed to secure that “depressed class pupils should receive equal opportunities of
entering into, and equal treatment in, all publicly managed institutions”.’ These students got help
from the Government in remission of fees, scholarships and special supervision.

This vital quickening in education under Liberal auspices stimulated a missionary spirit amongst
disinterested people, broke down the barriers of customs and ignorance, helped in building up
“enlightened opinion” which “no longer tolerated or acquiesced”2 in the helpless conditions of
untouchables and inferiority of women and mobilised the beneficence of the wealthy for the service
of education and other nation-building projects.

244
Liberal influence penetrated still deeper in the society. Literature reflected Liberal ideology in
thought and expression. Social values changed and transformed the perspective of life in the
country. The sacred Texts no longed remained sacrosanct, free thinking and free comments became
the order of the day. Even Vivekanand said, “Can you make

I Education Report, p. 226.

2 Indian Statutory Commission, Vol. I, p! 40S.

a European Society with India’s religion? I believe it, is possible and must be”.1 This reorientation of
outlook in life and literature is a Liberal gift. The new spirit mani-fested itself in the great regional
literatures of the country in the form of new popular themes, new techniques, and new forms. The
fine Arts became more and more popular in their appeal. All these developments exhibit the spread
of Liberalism, though, of course, they are not to be attributed to the Indian Liberals as a Party. “The
Liberal Party,” as Elliot Dodds puts it, “is not always the same thing as Liberalism”.’ Nevertheless, the
two are interconnected as body and soul, and this slight reference to these broader social changes
may be said to possess at least a partial appositness.

Notwithstanding this creed ;rid these achievements based thereon the failures of the Party are not
less striking. At the best, the Liberals dreamed of Swaraj of the type of Dominion Status. The
Republic of the Indian Union of the present day could not get a place even in their political utopia.
‘The Liberals were almost elegiac in contemplating a state of affairs in which there would be no Indo-
British connection and apocalyptic in asserting that. India’s tics with British were unbreakable. This
political foresight of the Liberal Party has been appreciated even by Pandit Nehru who had once
pooh-poohed the Liberals’ fondness for the British connection. India still rates the British connection
as of supreme importance. To this extent it is a triumph of Liberal perspicacity, but ‘Liberal’
statemanship regarded it as ‘divine dispensation’ and feared that after the Britons left the country
there would be ‘a deluge’. This attitude, perhaps, was weak and failed to provide that national self-
confidence which is the key-stone of a national edifice. No

1 Nirad C. Chaudhari: ‘The Autobiography of an unknown Indian,’ (London, 1951), 13 468.

2 Elliot Dodds: ‘Liberalism in Action (Allen and Unwin, London, 1922), p. 32,

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 393

nation can ever rise and stand on its own feet., if it depends for its protection and progress on sonic
outside power, howsoever friendly, just and honest it may be. All growth under the shade of a bigger
tree is stunted and dwarfed. The Liberal statesmanship, under the spell of the British might, could
not contemplate a free India with requisite strength to defend herself and frame her own internal
and external policy.

There is a close correspondence between Liberal success and failure. The Liberals trusted to
constitutional agitation to secure their political objective, viz.. Dominion Status. They were almost
over-conscious of the prevailing political inexperience of the people and of the political disunity
among them. Their work was done principally in the Congress, the legislatures, the press’ and

245
occasionally at public meetings, or through the various sectional institutions that they set up. It may
be doubted if these methods could endow the nation with sufficient political strength to snatch
power from the foreign rulers. Direct action was almost a taboo in Liberal methodology. At best, this
policy, which was derided as ‘mendicancy’ by opponents and eulogised as ‘constitutionalism’ by the
proponents, can bring about a compromise between two warring parties. Mere constitutionalism,
perhaps, could not have compelled the British Government to yield to the popular demand.

Different political principles and tactics which had been employed at different times in the West
were used at different times in the Indian War of Independence. If we review closely the Indian
struggle for freedom, we can hear the echoes of the Parliamentary fight against Stuart despotism, as
well as the rebellion against Hanoverian Imperial-ism and the mass-outbreak against Bourbon
corruption and

‘See Appendix 1 for a study and review of the Liberal Press in India.

F. 50

conspiracies and intrigues against Tsarist oppression. All these tactics were employed at different
times by different schools of Indian patriots to wrest power from the British Imperialism. The role of
the Liberals in this struggle was of an initiatory and stabilising character. It is perhaps necessary to
remember that the Liberal mind is prone to shun all that savours of conflict and violent struggle, and
so every form of “direct action” is alien to its mode of thought and action. It was, therefore,
inevitable that the Indian Liberals should keep aloof from the various ‘direct action’ movements of
the Congress. A movement launched on liberal lines could not in the nature of things have secured
Swaraj for the country so early and of such a complexion.

Furthermore, the Liberal Party was essentially a middle class movement patronized by the upper
classes—the intelli-gentsia, the Zamindars and the newly established capitalists. The Middle Class
consists of people who always move with caution and shudder to take a headlong plunge. The Upper
Class is essentially conservative and most reluctant to change the status quo. Why the Upper Class
lent a helping hand to the Middle Class was that in self-interest it was necessary for them to demand
these concessions. The sanction of such concessions spelt political progress and enabled these
highly-placed people to satisfy their patriotic urges. The Middle Class patriots were moved by a
genuine feeling of patriotism, for they saw the sad plight of their countrymen under the foreign set-
up, but they could not stake their livelihood for the sake of the country. They were prepared to push
forward any political movement but were unwilling to lose their balance. So we see in the Liberal
Party people from the bar and the bench, teaching profession, retired civilians, medical men,
journalists, authors, etc. There were some Capitalists and Zamindars also but their number was not
large. Such a membership of the Party naturally shaped its policy .and programme of constitIttional
action. Such a class can never

LIBERAL. ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 395

afford to be revolutionary in its views. It can never lose its balance and engage itself in a ‘now-or-
never’ campaign.

246
It has been often said that the Liberal Party “consisted of all leaders and no followers”. The sneer
had just a sufficient measure of reality behind it to make it current coin. But it is by no means
literally true. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that a party, which puts its faith in stricly limited
constitutional action to achieve objects which it admits to be supremely important and whose
sphere of activity is restricted to the haunts of the well-to-do and the so-called cultured elite, cannot
have a ‘mass’ appeal. Such a party did not expand and organise itself into a mighty national force.
The message of the Liberal Party could never permeate the masses. It was too technical for the
unsophisticated and unlettered villager. In a fight for freedom the role of the masses can never be
over-stressed and Gandhiji marked this weakness of early leadership and tried to remove it with
astounding success.

The Liberals further never succeeded in finding a solution for the Hindu-Muslim problem. The
Liberals awoke to the realities when the British availed themselves of the opportunities and made
the Muslims as a bulwark to check the tide of Indian nationalism. They stepped up the Muslim
Renaissance and awakened them to the coming danger and showed them the way to avert it. The
first oppo-sition from the Muslims came in the form of a demand for separate electorates.

This failure was not due to any lack of effort on. the part of the Liberals for they always conceived of
Indian nationalism as a joint concern of Hindus, Muslims, Jains and Parsis alike. Historical
circumstances and British intrigues, however, defeated all their efforts. The Liberals submitted to
separate electorates introduced in the Morley-Minto scheme of Reforms. The Liberals knew the
disastrous consequences of this innovation and protested against it but did not boy

1 Cf. The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian by Nirod C. Chaudhary, pp. 432-39 for a striking
discussion on this theme.

ant the reforms on this issue. Although other parties shared in this political blunder, yet the initial
mistake was committed by the early Liberal statesmen. Later on, they stopped to conquer the
Muslims, but Jinnah’s obduracy set their attempts at naught.

The Liberals, as a class, may be said to have been pal-pably biassed in favour of “Occidentalism”.
Their emphasis on Western Education and Civilization, and Western Science, their zeal for British
political institutions disabled them perhaps from appreciating the right place of national culture in
the new synthesis that was taking place. They yielded to none, of course, in their love and respect
for the ancient culture of the land but, in practice, they placed more emphasis on what was new and
‘Western’, and often did not fully appreciate the great vitality of ancient ideals and insti-tutions in
the peoples’ consciousness. Gandhiji instinctively reacted to these forces, and was readily able to
make the agitation for Swaraj a mass movement.’

The Liberal Party in India was constituted after the British model. The British Liberal Party flourished
in the 19th Century and with the rise of labour in the beginning of the 20th Century began its
decline. The Indian Liberal, Party began to function in Government after 1920 when its parental
body had begun to show signs of decline. Hence it worked always with diffidence and perhaps with a
sense of frustration. Sir Tcj wanted to reorganise the Party when the leaders of the Indian National
Congress refused to participate in the Round Table Conference. But Sir Tej got no support from the

247
Liberal Party and in utter disgust he severed his connection with the Party but never with the Liberal
Creed. These inherent weaknesses of the party and its

LIBERAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES 397

ideological peculiarities naturally weakened it to face the Gandhian Congress as an equal. After
1923, the Indian Liberals continued to have an important role in the national movement, but the
pride of place in it was increasingly appropriated by the Congress. Nevertheless, as the foregoing
chapters have perhaps made clear, individual Liberals continue to play a prominent part in all phases
of Indian politics and life.

This is why they received enthusiastic encomiums and compliments from all parties and many
individuals. They had their critics also some of whom described the Liberal leaders as ‘armchair
critics’. Others said that they were great “fighters for commas and full stops-. Yet others said that
they were office and title-seekers. Pandit. Nehru says that they (the Liberals) became “the Hamlets
of Indian Politics, ‘sicklied over with the pale cast of thought’, ever doubting, hesitating and
irresolute”.’ Perhaps, there is sonic measure of truth in these criticisms from the point of view of
more active and extremist politicians who differed from the Liberals both in ideology and methods;
but it will be rather unfair to deny that the Liberals continued to influence materially the whole
course of Indian politics even between 1921 and 1947.

I Nehru’s Autobiography, p. 393.

CHAPTER XI: SOME LIBERAL LEADERS & THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS

It will be interesting, against the foregoing background, to assess the contributions of some
prominent Liberal leaders of the later generations of Indian politics and statesmanship in the recent
social political history of India. The first and foremost among them stands ‘the Grand Old Man’,
Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917). He was the ‘patriarch’ of Liberalism in India and ‘father’ of the Indian
National Congress. He won several unique distinctions and started many striking movements. He had
the unique honour of being the first Indian professor at a time when even High School Education
was a rare distinction. He did poineering work in the cause of female education. He became the first
Indian member of the House of Commons. Thrice he presided over the annual sessions of the Indian
National Congress. He started several political associations. lie may be described as the leader of our
early leaders. In one of his speeches in Madras in 1908, Gokhale described him as :

“the foremost Indian of our time, the man without self, or stain, our aged chief who bears on his
head the snow of years, but carries in his heart the fire of youth.” To Gokhale’s mind “he was one of
the most perfect examples of the highest type of patriotism that any country has ever produced.”1

In his later days Dadabhai was criticised for using lan-guage which could rouse a feeling of
resentment among members of the ruling class. To such critics, Gokhale replied that :—

Dadabhai stood in the position of a teacher not only to his countrymen but also to the rulers of the
land.’

1 Gokhale’s Speeches, .p. 765.

248
A teacher need not overlay truth with soft and plausible expressions. Gokliale declared that whether
Dadabhai used mild or bitter words “our place is round his stan-dard.”

“Whoever repudiates Dadabhai, he is none of us; whoever tries to lay rude and irreverent hands on
him, strike him down.”‘

Ranade once said of Dadabhai that he was only one in three hundred millions. Pheroz Shah Mehta
said in a letter to the Bombay Gazette (Jan. 21, 1869) “if I were called upon to point out the man
most deserving to be styled the Sir Philip Sidney of the Indian Renaissance, I would unhesitatingly
single out Professor Dadabhai “2 To him Gandhiji once said, “Please chide me if I go wrong, please
put me right; 1 am like your son in every respect.”3

No Indian leader started an institution, an organisation or a movement without consulting him.

Gokhale obtained his blessings before launching his ‘Servants of India Society’, in 1905, and so also
Dr. Besant her Indian Home Rule League, in 1915. He had the rare distinction of being visited by
Viceroys and Governors who paid him the homage due to his selfless service to his country and to all
that was noble and great eleswhere. Digby compared him to John Bright stating that “Mr. Naoroji
had done that for Indian politics which steam power had accomplished for traction purposes.* A
glowing tribute was paid to him by Wedderburn on the occasion of Dadabhai’s saying good-bye to
England for the last time. “ • for half a century he has kept alive among Indians the belief that in the
end England will be true

1 Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 764.

2 Quoted by Masani—Dadabhai Naoroji—the Grand Old Man of India, pp. 112-113.

8 Quoted by V. S. Srinivas Sastri in his lecture on Dadabhai in the Annamalai University in 1940.
Sastri: Thymb Nail Sketches, p. 3. 4 Masani’s Grand Old Man, p. 413.

to her own tradition; that she will make of India a trusted partner like Edmund Burke, he has never
lost faith in the ancient and inbred integrity” of the British people.’ Dr. Mac-Kichan, the erudite Vice-
Chancellor of Bombay Uni-versity, on the occasion of conferring the honorary Degree of Doctor of
Laws on Dadabhai said, “Men of all shades of poli-tical opinion were quick to discern the transparent
honesty, the simplicity of purpose, the unselfish patriotism of the man who sought to interpret to
Great Britain the needs and aspirations of his countrymen.-” Sir Narayanrao Chandavar kar went to
the extent of saying that “he was the prophet Zoraster’s religion personified because he was the
man of pure thought., of pure speech and of pure deeds.”“

Our main task here is to discover the character of the lead he gave to our nationalism. Dadabhai
summed up in his life the history of the great Indian Renaissance of which he was himself a worthy
product and which he reared up with his unique talents. fie was a visible embodiment to our
struggles and our aspirations for over half a century.

In his childhood, Dadabhai saw his country in deep slumber, unconscious of her wrongs and
oblivious of her rights. His aim was to stir her slowly to a sense of her true status among the civilised
nations of the world. His foremost object in politics was to let his countrymen know their problems
and to interpret them to the British nation and British Government. With this end in view he
launched many political organisations and joined many societies at home and abroad. He started the

249
progressive journal ‘Rast Goftar’, to state fairly India’s cause. To popularise India’s cause both at
home and abroad was the first object which Dadabhai set up for Indian leaders t’o follow.

1 Masani’s ‘Grand Old Man,’ pp. 509-510.

2 Masani: Dadabhai, pp. 536-537.

Ibid., p. 538.

His voyages to England were undertaken for the purpose of carrying on his business, but his real
interest lay not so much in making money as in carrying on agitation in England on behalf of his
country. He suffered reverses in business but achieved brilliant success in his real aim, namely, work
for the economic and political welfare of India. In England his first object was to get first-hand
knowledge of the social and political institutions of the country. The framework and actual working
of those institutions strengthened Dadabhai’s conviction that if the British people were true to
themselves and to their traditions of equality, they would not be an obstacle in India’s way of
achieving her freedom.

He felt convinced that the interests of India and Great Britain were intertwined. It was in their
mutual interest to remain united. The reason why the Government of India was antagonistic to that
view in the beginning was that they were ignorant of the real conditions of India. If once the
misunderstanding was dispelled, the ties between the two countries would be closer. With this end
in view, he undertook to awaken the British people to their obligations for the better administration
of the country.

In order to educate the British public about the needs and problems of India, Dadabhai started with
a number of retired Anglo-Indian officials the famous East India Association on December 1, 1866. It
brought both Englishmen and Indians on a common platform not only to ventilate Indian grievances
but to remove misunderstandings and contradict calumnies. Its object was to advocate the interests
of India and promote her welfare by all legitimate means. It made provision for a library and reading
room and served all who sought for information about India. It provided a forum for all who had a
claim to special knowledge on Indian or colonial subjects. At the gatherings of this association
Dadabhai read papers on sucb subjects as “Eng.

land’s duties to India,” “Expenses of the Abyssinian War”, and initiated discussions. His example was
followed by others. Thus the English people came to know the real state of affairs in India.

Under its auspices, a memorial demanding that competitive examinations should be held in India as
well as in England was sent to the Secretary of State on August 13, 1867. Members of the House of
Commons were enlisted to move in the Parliament that simultaneous examinations should be held
both in England and India. Deputations soliciting attention to the necessity of irrigation works in
India were sent by the Association. A variety of administrative and political topics were discussed
and both Indian and English official and non-official views on these questions were presented in
support of the suggested measures. Obviously a most useful service was thus rendered to India and
England alike by Dadabhai.

Dadabhai’s candidature to Parliament is another remark-able episode in his life. It made him and his
country known to Englishmen. For eight years he fought to secure entry into Parliament to further

250
the patriotic objects he had nearest to his heart. He sought to enter the House of Commons from
Holborn as a Liberal candidate in 1888. The electorate was strongly Conservative and there was
hardly any chance for one who declared ‘Home Rule to be the Golden Rule.’ He then tried Central
Finsbury and succeeded in his efforts.

It is needless to give details as to how he achieved this unique distinction. Yet one incident merits
mention. Dadabhai’s biographer tells us how Dadabhai one night went to sleep, still a nameless
figure in British politics, and woke up to find himself famous. While trying to explain why the
Conservative majority in the latest Holborn contest had dwindled, Salisbury referred to Dadabhai as
a “Black-man” in his Edinburgh speech on November 30, 1888.

“It was undoubtedly a smaller majority than Col. Duncan obtained, but then Col. Duncan was
opposed by a black man, and however great the progress of mankind has been I doubt if we have yet
got to that point of view where a British constituency would elect a black man.”‘

These two words at once lifted Dadabhai into public fame. Such language offended the right-minded
section of the British people. Lord Salisbury was condemned at public meetings by people like John
Morley (later Lord Morley). The English people resented this insult to Dadabhai and the result was
that when he sought election on the next occasion from Central Finsbury, he got widespread support
and was elected to the House in 1892. He stood as a Gladstonian liberal and both Central Finsbury
and India rejoiced at his victory.

V. S. Srinivas Sastri once quoted a British newspaper’s vivid portrait of Naoroji

“If Mr. Naoroji had changed his name to Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones no one would know him to be a
Parsee But Naoroji is a puzzler for the British elector. If physiognomy be any indication of
intellectual merits, Mr. Naoroji is shrewd and penetrating with a large leaven of benevolence. His
ample beard and moustache are plentifully sprinkled with white. He wears a pair of gold-rimmed
spectacles, which he frequently adjusts when he makes a point. He sometimes looks over his glasses
with a humorous smile and gay twinkle in his bright eyes which speak volumes for his keen sense of
fun. The regulation frock coat fits him like a glove, and a better platform figure it would be difficult
to find.”2

1 Masani’s ‘Grand Old Man’, p. 263.

2 Sastri’s lecture on ‘The Grand Old Man’ delivered to the students of the Annamalai University in
1940; Sastri: Thumb Nail Sketches, pp. 28-29.

In the election of 1892 he defeated his opponent only by three votes. The English people found it
difficult to pronounce his name so instead of calling him Naoroji, they began to call him ‘Narrow
Majority’. Justice B. J. Wadia, then a law student, coined a nice epigram out of Dadabhai’s name.
“His very name”, Wadia said, “carried with it the attributes of a great patriot: ‘Dada’ (father) of all
India by universal consent, arid Bhai (brother) of those who suffer and live under suffering, the first
of India’s sons working for the Naoroj (New Day) of India’s liberty and emancipation.” Masani
suggests that this epigram might perhaps have gained in brilliance if, taking cognizance of the suffix
‘Ji’ (Lord) the speaker had designated Dadabhai as the lord of the New Day (naoroz) of ampler life.’

251
In Parliament, Dadabhai missed no opportunity to venti-late India’s grievances and advocate her
claims. In 1893, he induced one of his friends, Herbert Paul, to bring forward a resolution declaring
that there should be simultaneous examinations for the Indian Civil Service in both India and
England. The resolution was moved and was supported by D-adabhai and Weddcrburn. It was
carried by 84 against 76. This proposition apppears to be so simple today but was then hotly resisted
by the Conservatives. It was a glorious triumph, but a resolution passed in the House of Commons
was not binding on the executive Government and the Government of India did not implement it.

Through the ceaseless efforts of Dadabhai, the Government of England was at least persuaded to
appoint the Welby Commission (1897) to enquire into the financial relations between the two
countries and apportion charges between the two governments, for purposes in which both were
interested. Dadabhai was invited to join the Commission. Gokhale, Subrahmanya Ayyar,
Surendranath Banerjea and

Masani’s ‘Grand Old Man’, p., 499.

Dinshaw Wacha gave evidence before it. Though a member of the Commission, Dadabhai also
offered himself for examination as a witness. The recommendations of this Commission have been
discussed in Chapter IV of this book already. It is sufficient here to mention that Dadabhai, mobilised
all patriotic Indians to submit representations and to send every information as to facts and figures
and cases to support his proposition. Though this Commission like others ended in a fiasco,
Dadabhai’s work in connection with it helped greatly in the organisation of public opinion in India.

As Chintamani put it, “Dadabhai cleared the jungle and laid out the broad tracks upon which public
activities con-tinued to run for long years.”‘ He yielded to none in his appreciation of the great
benefits of British rule but he felt that these benefits were marred by two great evils : one material
and the other moral. The central point of most of Naoroji’s discourses and writings was the
enormous “drain” of wealth from India to England year after year. The moral evil, in his opinion, was
the exclusion of Indians from responsible offices. He calculated that 30 million pounds annually were
taken away from India by Britain in various forms, such as pensions and furlough charges of
European officers, expenditure on European troops, expenses incurred in England on behalf of the
Indian Government, profits sent by European merchants, the savings of English lawyers, doctors and
civil military employees, etc. This annual drain left no margin for saving. No industry could be run
without capital. No capital could accumulate without saving. So, there was no hope for the industrial
development of the country by Indians.

The exclusion of Indians from the higher services was doubly harmful. Europeans occupied almost all
higher

1C. Y. Chintamani: Pplitics Sincithe Mutiny’, p. 36.

places in every department of. Government. While in India, they acquired money and experience but
they carried both away with them when they retired to England. Thus India was left without those
elders who are the natural guides of the rising generations. He further argued that Indians wanted to
occupy in their own country offices which developed resourcefulness and strength of character and
the courage to take the initiative. Such virtues could be cultivated only by active participation in the
administration. These opportunities were denied to India.

252
Srinivas Sastri has said, on the authority of Gokhale, that the ‘drain’ theory of Naoroji received the
fullest support of all Indian politicians including Ranade, but that Ranade held that Dadabhai’s
denunciation of this ‘drain’ must be qualified by a credit entry on the side of Great Britain, namely,
the great benefits that British rule had conferred upon this country—peace and order and a
conciousness of political rights and the establishment of reign of law.’

Dadabhai rendered one more great service to India. In these days fewer returns and statements
were published by Government, and the few published were not easily available. With indefatigable
labour, he collected facts and figures and calculated that the average annual income of an Indian
was Rs.20/-, the first scientific assessment of the per capita income of Indians. It was a clear
indictment of the British administration. Sir Eveylyn Baring worked out these figures again to
controvert Dadabhai’s figure but all he could do was to raise the figure by Rs.7 /-. Curzon also made
another attempt to refute Dadabhai but all he also could do was to raise it by no more than another
Rs.3/-!

Dadabhai’s book, ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’, was a striking contribution of the veteran
leader to the study of the economic history of the country under British rule.

1 Sastri’s lecture on ‘The Grand Old Man’ in the Annamalai University in 1940; Sastri: Thumb Nail
Sketches, p. 34.

To him also goes the credit of coining the magic word `Swaral. He used it to control the boisterous
extremists who had grown tired of the ‘Old World’ politicians and their ‘mendacious’ policy and
wanted to fight for national autonomy in place of self-government under British paramountcy. It was
to silence these extremists that the elders invited Dadabhai Naoroji from England to preside over the
stormy session of the Calcutta Congress in 1906. Despite his old age and infirmity be agreed to do so
and made use of this word `Swaral in his Presidential address. Since then, the word came to be used
in the authoritative literature of the National Congress to express India’s political objective. In the
sphere of social reforms also, he was a supporter of the temperance movement and waged a
crusade against the opium traffic. He organised, despite strong opposition by the orthodox, a society
to promote female education.

Dadabhai’s unsleeping and single-minded devotion to. the causes of Reform and Freedom in India
place him in the front rank of Indian patriots alongside of Raja Rammohan Roy, Ranade and Gokhale.
The younger generation of nationalists had travelled further than Dadabhai in their opposition to
British in that great man’s own life-time. But we should not forget the limitations of his own times in
assessing his contributions to national thought and national organisation. He passed away in the
same year in which Britain at last announced self-government for India as the goal of British policy—
a fit closure and consummation to Dadabhai’s long struggle for `Swaray from the seventies to 1917!

Pherozeshah Mehta (1845-1915):—In the making of the Indian Nation in general, and of the Liberal
Party in particular, the name of Pherozeshah Mehta, ‘the mitred Parsi’, ranks amongst the foremost.
In fact, it was. because of the presence of such dominating personalities among its members that the
Liberal Party of India could earn the esteem of the people at home and abroad. If there is one word
in the English vocabulary which sums up the character of this Parsi leader, it is ‘dominance’. He
dominated the bar, he dominated the Bombay Corporation, he dominated the Central and Provincial

253
Councils, he dominated the Congress and, in fact, it was his dominance that led to the split in the
Congress and ultimate establishment of the ‘Moderates’ as an independent and separate party.

In their devotion to and veneration for the national leaders, people run to comparisons and
comparisons are pro-verbially invidious. One shrewd observer remarked that Mr. Telang was always
lucid and cultured, Mr. Mehta vigorous and brilliant and Mr. Ranade profound and original. Cokhale
observed that “Mr. Mehta, to a great extent, is a happy combination of the independence and
strength of character of the late Mr. Mandlik, the lucidity and culture of Mr. Telang and the
originality and wide grasp of Mr. Ranade”.1 Mehta was, however, incomparable in his indifference
to personal advancement. in his readiness to advance his rivals, in freedom from hypocrisy and
conceit, in grasp and vigour of intellect, in his wide culture, in his fearless, resolute and unswerving
independence, in his impressive presence and powerful personality. Mehta knew how to order his
loyalties to different associations. “In a land of divisions of caste and religion, of race and
occupation, of provincial interests and religious differences,” writes the Aga Khan, “Sir Pherozeshah
in his very life, perhaps unconsciouly, showed the greatest synthesis of patriotism and
particularism.”2 A Parsi of Parsis, he was yet an Indian of Indians. A Bombayitc, he was the torch-
bearer of Indian Nationalism.

Gokhale’s speech at the Eighth Provincial Conference at Belgaum on the llth May, 1895; Gokhale’s
speeches, p. 798.

2 In a foreword by the Aga Khan to the biography of Sir P. S. Mehta by H. P, Mody,’Vol. I, p. IV,

Since 1868 when he returned from England as a barrister, till his death in 1915, Pherozeshah
dominated for full forty-seven years the public life of the country and helped to mould Indian
political aspirations in a definite direction and gathered round him a large number of co-workers. He
enjoyed the full and unstinted confidence of his contemporaries. Gokhale used to say, “I would
rather be wrong with Pherozeshah than right without him”. Dr. Rutherford, a liberal member of
Parliament who visited India in 1907, wrote in the “Manchester Guardian” that “Sir Pherozeshah
Mehta would be the first man in the political kingdom in any country”.1 The governing principle
underlying his political ideology was his firm belief in the benefits of British Rule. He accepted British
Rule, as Ranade did, as a divine dispensation. As Chairman of the Reception Committee at the
Bombay Congress in 1904, he said that “it would be folly not to accept British rule as a declaration of
God’s will”. But this conviction could not tamper his merciless attacks on the oppression, the
blunders and the injustice of British administration in India, He stood up most resolutely against the
indiscreet acts of the bureaucracy and never learnt to yield to the frowns of the authorities.

He was a great advocate of ordered progress and consti-tutional agitation. He had an abiding faith in
the virtue of gradual and peaceful evolution, of ‘freedom slowly broadening down from precedent to
precedent’. He was profoundly concerned with the immediate present and was not much worried
with the distant goal. In this respect his political outlook may be regarded as somewhat
conservative. It was this progressive conservatism which lent sobriety and profundity to Indian
statesmanship in the age of the Liberal giants.

Pherozeshah was a man of constructive genius and it was his political craftsmanship that compelled
the admira

254
1 Quoted in ‘Indian Politics since the Mutiny’, p. 38.

tion of the ruling class and showed to them that India was no longer a land of hewers of wood and
drawers of water but that a ‘new spirit’ was at work in the country. Such recognition by the rulers
reinforced the confidence of the educated class in early Liberal leadership.

A couple of examples would give us an idea of his maturity of thought and political sagacity. His
views on education expressed early in life cannot be challenged even perhaps by the latest thinkers
on the subject. At the early age of 26, he read a paper on municipal reforms before the Bombay
Branch of the East India Association. These suggestions were later embodied in the municipal
constitution of the premier city of India and lasted for over half a century. In the same way his views
on reforms in the Civil Service and the advantages of Indian participation in party politics establish
his claim to profound statesmanship.

As a solid proof of Phcrozeshah’s services to India and to the cause of the Constitutional Party, it
may be mentioned that he secured for Indians the control of the Bombay Corporation and converted
it into a model of local self-government. All this was not done in a day. He was the first to diagnose
the evils of the municipal system and to prescribe the right remedies. The Act of 1872 made a close
approach to the ideals of municipal government as laid down by Pherozeshah. Then the Municipal
Act of 1888, which set up the Bombay Corporation and provided excellent training to many a
national warrior in politics, ‘bears’, in the words of the Duke of Connaught, “the indeliable mark of
genius impressed upon it by the late Sir Pherozeshah.”‘ Pherozeshah soon attained a position of
unrivalled predominance in the Corporation. Gokhale said that. “there is a close parallel to it in the
mighty influence excercised by Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham and is not dissimilar to the

Quoted by Mody iq his biography, p. 206.

Gokhale’s speeches in Madhava Bagh on April 7, 1907 as a protest against the Caucus: Gokhale’s
Speeches, p. 803.

position occupied by Lord Palmerston for many years in Whig England and later by the Great
Gladstone in the counsels of the Liberal Party.”‘ In addition to this predominance there was one
more reason which stimulated a coterie of officials to oust Mr. Mehra from the Corporation. In 1904
Lord Curzon secured the conferment on Pherozeshah of the dignity of a K.C.I.E. People thinking it to
be a sop to moderate his views were disillusioned, when Pherozeshah made a strong protest against
the proposal of a section of the Corporation to honour Lord Curzon with an address of welcome on
the occasion of the latter’s return to India in 1905.

On the occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India in 1905, the President, the Commissioner
and the Sheriff of Bombay Corporation were not included among those who were to receive their
Royal Highnesses on their landing at the Bunder, although the Municipal Secretary, at the desire of
the President, had written to Government to give a prominent place to the representatives of the
Corporation on the occasion. This filled the Corporation with indignation. It created a sensation in
the city. Mehta took a very strong view of the insult and the Government had to capitulate and
regretted the misunderstanding. Similarly on the question of the introduction of Standard Time,
Mehta opposed the innovotion and secured its rejection. These examples showed to some European

255
members of the Corporation that Pherozeshah’s domination had reached its limit and should be
stopped. The despot was to be overthrown and they managed to overthrow him.

In 1907, the general elections to the Bombay Corporation were to take place.

At that time there was a constituency of the Justices of the Peace for the Town and island of
Bombay. It

had to return 16 members. Pherozeshah was a candi-date as usual for one of the seats.’ Some
European members as well as the then Municipal Commissioner, Mr. Sheppard, formed a clique to
defeat Pherozeshah. Pherozeshah was not included in the caucus ticket. All the nominees of the
caucus, except one, got in. Pherozeshah’s name was seventeenth on the list. The result was received
with pain and indignation in the city. But the defeat increased the prestige of the Bombay dictator all
the more. It was a temporary defeat. One of the caucus candidates was disqualified on technical
grounds and so Pherozeshah walked in. This long elucidation of Pherozeshah’s predominance in the
Bombay Corporation has been given to show that he never compromised with his own convictions in
order to earn official approval and always fought the bureaucracy for the right as he conceived it. His
success roused the jealousy of the European group which failed to lower his prestige. Such was the
personality of this ‘Uncrowned King of Bombay’. To the people of Bombay “Sir Pherozeshah (meant)
the Corporation • and the Corporation (meant) Pherozeshah”.

Pherozeshah could not brook the slightest compromise with his position and principles. Feelings ran
high over the partition of Bengal and the whole of Bengal simmered with rage. A new party led by B.
C. Pal, Ghosh and Tilak bitterly opposed the traditional policy of the Congress. The trouble began to
brew up from 1905 and flared up at Cal cutta; in the Subjects Committee of the Calcutta Congress
Pherozeshah and others were grossly insulted. Yet he was firm in his convictions and was
determined to fight the new doctrines with the same vigour with which he had fought the tyranny of
the British. He, stuck to the path of mode ration and sanity. “He did perhaps more than any one else
to prevent the complete triumph of Tilakism in the Congress right down to the Surat upheaval.”
Pherozeshah and other Bombay leaders made efforts to effect a compromise with no results. At this
Pherozeshah and his party, as was pointed out in Chapter V of this work, changed the venue, of the
Congress from Nagpur to Surat. It was too much for the Extremists to bear and the result, as we
have seen, was the Surat split.

In the following year the Congress met at Madras and the Extremists were kept out. In 1909 the
session was to be held at Lahore and the. choice of Provincial Congress Committees fell on
Pherozeshah to be the President but he refused the honour. His biographer has criticised his action
and thought that “it gave a shattering blow to the Congress cause.”2 But the lion was wounded at
Surat. The wound was yet raw. It is strange that even the great biographer failed to appreciate the
psychology of a strong man. Thereafter, the Extremists tried to re-enter the Congress but
Pherozeshah had only an eternal negative to offer them. Were he alive then, perhaps the Extremists
could not have re-entered the Congress even in 1916.

After Surat, there appears to be a flagging of his interest in politics. ‘The fact of the matter was, as
the Aga Khan tells us, “his was not a nature to be satisfied with half measures.”“ “The full goal of

256
Dominion self-Government within the empire was clear to him as to any other patriotic son of India,
but again the strength of his practical nature gave him such patience that withiut forgetting the
beacon in the distance he could see the thorns that made the path difficult and dangerous.”‘

Greater than all his achievements was his powerful personality to the formation of which the ideas
and burning

1 Chirol: Indian Unrest, p. 51.

2 Mody’s biography, Vol. II, p. 555.

3 Foreword by Aga Khan; Ibid., Vol. I, p. V.

4 Ibid., p. V.

patriotism of Dadabhai, liberalism of Gladstone and Bright, his own robust optimism, the inspirations
bf Dickens, Thackeray, Tennyson and the Bible, had alike contributed their measure. A Punjabi
delegate once said that Pherozeshah’s personality dominated everybody. This was symbolic of the
feelings of those who differed from him and yet felt helpless in his presence. He had a presence
which could not be mistaken and dress and manners lent a grace and distinction to his noble
address. His style of living and his Parsi cap caused a hotel manager in Paris to mistake him for the
Shah of Persia! In later times, his memory came to be cherished by the Liberals for his abiding faith
in the Liberal principles, for his unassailable optimism, for his strong secularist outlook and his bias
for constitutional agitation while the Extremists remembered him for his forceful utterances and for
his relentless attacks against injustice, tyranny and oppression.

Sir Surendranath Banerjea (1848-1925):—Surendra-nath was another mighty pillar of Indian

Nationalism. In the long roll of Liberal luminaries, some might have shed greater brilliance and purer
lustre but none could beat him in magnitude of light or duration of illumination. He was one of the
makers of modern Bengal. But for him the “settled fact” of the Partition of Bengal could never have
been “unsettled”. He was one of those who gave birth to the Indian National Congress and twice he
presided over its annual sessions, once at Poona in 1895 and then at Ahmedabad in 1902. He was
the First President of the First ‘Moderate’ Conference at Bombay in 1918, which marked the
beginning of the Liberal Party in India.

The story goes that on one occasion, a primary school teacher called the child Surendranath ‘mars
Brahmin’ (a sheepish Brahmin) and the child refused to go back to the Pathshalal It was this
unyielding trait that ultimately won

for him the honourable sobrequet of “Surrender-Not’. After

1 Srinivas Sastri’s article on Sir Surendranath Banerjea in the The Servant of India,’ Aug. 13, 1925.

a fairly creditable school and college career, he was sent to England in 1868 to compete for the
Indian Civil Service. He worked hard and passed the Open Competitive Examination for the I. C. S.
But on technical grounds of age his name was removed from the list of successful candidates. This
evoked a storm of indignation in India. On his behalf, a writ of mandamus was moved for the
restoration of his name. He won the case, but his father died before the news could reach him. He
appeared at the Final Examination of 1871 and was successful. He was appointed as an Assistant

257
Magistrate at Sylhet but due to a technical error he was dismissed from his post and also from the
Indian Civil Service.

His dismissal from service was a clear gain to the coun-try. He went to England for the second time
and tried to enter the Bar, but from that, too, he was shut out. Thus all avenues to the realization of
an honourable ambition were closed to him. He never despaired but determined to ad-dress himself
to the task of redressing India’s wrongs and pro-tecting her rights. He began at once to take part in
public affairs. He took part in the Temperance movement. He made a speech on the evils of
intemperance which gained him popularity. Ishwar Chandra appointed him as Professor of English in
the Metropolitan Institution. He utilized this opportunity to kindle in the young public spirit and
inspire them with patriotism. He organised Students’ Association and by his matchless eloquence
kindled their enthusiasm to fervour. He became “the morning star that heralded the dawn of our
public life.”‘

Being associated with several colleges, he took charge of a school teaching up to the Matriculation
which under his fostering care developed into the first-grade Rippon College.

He was engaged in active teaching from 1875 to 1912 and had to withdraw himself front it in 1913
when he was elected to the Imperial Legislative Council. During his career as a teacher he stirred his
pupils out of their indifference to politics and created in them an interest in public affairs.

With the help of his friends, he established the Indian Association parallel to the British Indian
Association on a more democratic basis on July 26, 1876. His idea was that the Association should be
the centre of an All India movement. Without holding an office in the Association, he was its most
active worker. As said in Chapter IV of this book, he lived to create through this institution a strong
body of public opinion, to foster an idea of nationality, to promote friendly feelings amongst Hindus
and Musalmans and to associate the masses with the great public movements of the day. He
popularised Mazzini among the young men of Bengal. He discarded Mazzini’s revolutionary
teachings which were in his Opinion unsuited to the circumstances of India. He wanted Indian
development along the lines of peaceful and orderly progress. He inculcated only the lessons of
Mazzini’s noble partiotistn, self-abnegation and devotion to the interests of humanity. He asked
young men to adopt Mazzini’s spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion in the paths of constitutional
progress.

Among others who influenced him were Burke, Froude and Lord Morley.. To none did he owe a
greater debt than to Edmund Burke “whose political philosophy so largely moulded (my) own views
about government and society.”1 From Burke, he learnt the virtues of prudence and moderation and
said repeatedly that there was no such thing as inflexible principles in politics, but that every
principle must be limited in application by the circumstances.2

1S. N. Banerjea: ‘A Nation in Making’, p. 142.

2 An article on Sir Surendranath Banerjea by V. S. Srinivas Sastri, “The Hindu,” May 4, 1925.

When Salisbury, the then Secretary of State for India, reduced the maximum age limit for I. C. S.
from 21 to 19, Surendranath toured Northern and Western India extensively to organise country-
wide protest against the decision. A deputation to the House of Commons was sent under Lalmohan
Ghose and the move was crowned with success. Thus under Surendranath a new experiment to

258
voice Indian’s grievances through a deputation to England was made. These experiments became
commoner in future, but they confirm the wisdom and foresight of those who conceived the idea
and translated it into action.

Surendranath’s work as a journalist has been discussed in Appendix I to this book, and his work as a
minister has been dealt with earlier in Chapter VII. His share in the Swadeshi movement has been
discussed in Chapter V.

Surendranath is a study in contradiction. He was a bitter foe and trusted servant of the Government.
At one time he was imprisoned and at another knighted by the Crown. The phenomenon was so
striking in his life that he had to offer an explanation for it. Militant nationalism always looks upon a
person opposing a foreign Government as a hero, and on one supporting it as a villain. The sole
criterion of patriotism, however, should be not merely opposition to a foreign Government but to
discover time and opportunity to do good to one’s country. As Sastri has ,written, “The law of
patriotism is not that you should be against the Government, but that you should serve the na’ don.”

For his work in the Swadeshi and Boycott movements, Surendranath may be described as the father
of non-cooperation, but he repudiated a persistent policy of non-cooperation especially at a time
when the Government was beginning to move on progressive lines. He was the originator,

1 An article on S. N. Banerjea by Sastri in “The Hindu”, May, 4. 1925.

F. 53

of the Swadeshi movement also, but his Swadeshism was .a temporary measure—a protest against
the Partition of Bengal.

He was old-fashioned enough to believe in the peaceful methods by which in the main the
Englishman had achieved his freedom. He wanted Dominion Status for India, for which he tried to
bring pressure upon the constituted authorities. He felt that the M. C. Reforms bade fair to bring
further strength to the country, and so he pleaded for their acceptance and took ministership under
the scheme of dyarchy. Though this act of his was denounced by his countrymen in hard language,
yet nobody can dispute his remarks , that “domestic bereavements, greatest calamities, Government
disfavour, anathemas of friends, of near and dear ones have not prevented me from rendering the
service which I felt was due to my motherland.”‘ Indeed as Sastri, while seconding the vote of thanks
to S. N. Banerjea, said, “Surendranath’s life is a perfect example of what devotion to public duty
should be.”2

Surendranath has left us his autobiography, A Nation in Making’ which is a brief but clear history of
the 50 years of the national movement. This book also presents its au- thor at different stages of his
life. But, as pointed out by a critic, even a casual reader notices in it a marked egoism, an effort to
deck trivialities and an unpleasant method of flinging certificates of good conduct in the reader’s
face.” The comment is perhaps not without foundation, yet the book is a living piece of
autobiographic writing and with Ulysses he could say, “I am a part of all that I have met. I am
become a name, much have I seen and known.”

Surendranath Banerjea’s oratory eclipsed his merit as professor, Journalist and Minister. He was
known as ‘the

259
Concluding Presidential remarks of S. N. Banerjea in the 1st. “Moderate Conference” at Bombay,
1918.

2 Proceeding of the 1st. Moderate Conference at Bombay in 1918.

Sir Surendranath Banerjea as “Maker of Modern India” a critique by “An Unbiassed critic”, Hindustan
Review”, July, 1925.

trumpet-voice of India’ and his eloquence extorted the admiration of great English orators. It was
said of him that from Multan to Chittagong, he could, by the power of his tongue, raise a revolt
of6uppress a rebellion.

A word about his private life. Surendranath tells us that he was regular in his exercise. His associates
knew how fidgety he felt at the luncheon time. We do not know what he ate, but he carefully once
avoided a centipede which had got mixed with his dinner, thus depriving a poor thing of a high
destiny. He abjured smoking and drinking. Sastri tells us that some one made him a present of a
cigarette holder in middle age, but his guardian angel in the guise of a thievish menial stole it in a
few day’s time. Else the tell-tale instrument of his sole transgression in life would be a valuable
heirloom.’ He was fond of sleep. While coming back from England to India with two other Bengalees
in August, 1871 they were taken for German spies and were put in the French lock-up. They lay shut
up in the room from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. next morning. His friends talked away the whole night. There
were insects in the plank bed. But Surendranath was insensible to their attentions and lay ‘wrapped
in the gentle embraces of sleep.”2

Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru (1875-1949):--It• is perhaps the good luck of the Liberal Party everywhere that
it has attracted to itself the best brains, the rarest talents, profound thinkers, great religious and
social reformers, fine orators, selfless servants and ardent patriots. The Indian Liberal Party is a case
in point. It presents a panorama of great personalities that could make any party in the world an
object of envy and pride. In this galaxy, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru shines as a star of the first magnitude..
To give an idea of the inner spirit of the man, the writer can do no better than present three pictures
so beautifully drawn by

1 Sir Surendranath Banerjea’ Reminiscences of Half a CAmtury,” in ‘The Hindu’, May 4, 1925.

2’A Nation in Making:, p. 24.

three great artists. Pandit Nehru in his autobiography writes’

that it was probably in 1915 that he made a public speech on the occasion of a protest meeting
against the new Press Act. As soon as the meeting was over, writes Pandit. Nehru, Dr. Tej Bahadur
Sapru, to Nehru’s great embarrassment, embraced and kissed him in public on the dais. This was
not, Pandit Nehru assures us, because of what he had said or how he had said it; Sapru’s effusive joy
was caused by the mere fact that a new recruit had been obtained for public work, for this work
consisted in those days practically of speaking only. Then Pandit Nehru entertained a hope that of all
the moderate group in the city, Dr. Sapru seemed to be the most likely to take up an advanced

260
attitude in politics because he was emotional and could occasionally be carried away by enthusiasm.
Compared to him his father seemed to Pandit Nehru ‘cold-bloodedness’ itself.

‘Ali Kafir’ in his book, “Pillars of the Nation”, while giv

ing an idea of the aesthetic tastes of Dr. Sapru, writing in

1928, paints him with his delicate pen:

“on a couch of pansies in a chamber where the har-monies of sound and shade are perfect, where
fierce light, a garish patch or a harsh note would strike him like a blow violent gesticulation afflict
him with physical torture.” 2

Writing a few weeks before the celebration of the 71st birthday of Sir Tej, Srinivas Sastri betakes us
in imagination to

an evening with Sir ‘Tej as he sat on the verandah, imbibing scented smoke through the hubble-
bubble, where you can hear a raconteur of the first quality Jawaharlal Nehru’s Autobiography, p. 33,
seq.

2 ‘Al Kafir’: Pillars of the Nation, Vol. I (Con

1926), p. 67. gress Press, Delhi,

SOME LIBERAL LEADERS AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS 421

• entertaining ,a fair-sized audience of visitors of all ages with anecdotes sparkling with wit, humour
and repartees, matters of professional etiquette and horror and tales of legal lore’ and laughing and
shouting with them’:

These three snap-shots reveal the beginning, the middle and the closing scenes of a puissant
personality highly emo-tional, deeply aesthetic and graciously aware of a full and fruitful life well-
spent.

A jurist with wide reputation, a sober and sedate poli-tician, Sir ‘Tej Bahadur Sapru “could not
reconcile himself to the ways of B. G. Tilak and later of M. K. Gandhi. But in his own right and under
the impulse of his own view of Indo-British relations he was as valiant defender of his people’s self-
respect as anybody amongst his contemporaries.”2 He understood that the cult of the sword was a
chimera and was also opposed to Gandhiji’s no-cooperation movement. He was one of the best
exponents of the Liberal creed. In his life he represented a synthesis of Hindu, Muslim and British
cultures.

The first flash of his bright political career was a period of two years when he served in the Executive
Council of the Viceroy. He entered it without any exultation and got out of it without the least
compunction. During these two stormy years (1920-22) of Indian politics, Sapru did several acts, or
several acts were done in his name, by the Government of India, which his opponents described as
unpatriotic. But it is difficult to see how he could prevent the Government from acting as the
majority of the Council decided without resigning and thus putting a stop to rendering what little
service he could render to the country in office. He

261
1 ‘Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru’: “The Thumb Nail Sketches” by the Right Honourable V. S. Srinivas Sastri,
(Central Art Press, Madras, July, 1946), p. 244.

:The Modern Review, February 1949, p. 104.

never forgot the Liberal creed even while seated in the office of an alien Government. Two instances
can be given to prove this. It is alleged that he was instrumental in bringing about the arrest of the
Ali Brothers. The charge perhaps was not without a foundation and no attempt was ever made to
deny it. But he tenaciously opposed the arrest of Gandhiji, not because he was communal in his
behaviour but because he was anti-communal. Secularism was -the sheet-anchor of his political faith
which he did riot like to abjure even in the gravest hour. The Khilafat movement headed by the Ali
Brothers smacked of religiosity. It was probably dangerous to the existence of any government.
Gandhiji’s movement was not only secular in nature, but it was essentially non-violent and purely
constitutional. To the unconstitutional cult of Extremists Gandhiji gave the hall-mark of
constitutionalism. So long as Gandhiji was out the cause of secularism and constitutionalism could
not really suffer. So, Sapru tried to stand betweea Gandhiji and the jail and though he did not
succeed in preventing it, it is not success in such matters that counts, but the motive behind the
attempt.

The next flash of Sapru’s peculiar genius was his work at the Imperial Conference in 1923. By his
advocacy of the cause of the Indians overseas, he secured in that conference the passing of a
resolution establishing the equality of Indians in other parts of the British Empire. This resolution
was accepted by all the representatives of the Empire except by General Smuts. It was expected that
the problem of Kenya would be satisfactorily solved, but under pressure from the white population
of Kenya the Colonial Government could not give effect to the resolution. The prospects appeared to
be bleak It was suggested to him that he should retire from the Conference altogether, but he
judiciously abstained from taking that course and continued to work for the cause so’dear to him. He
succeeded in securing

SOME LIBERAL LEADERS AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS 423

the appointment of committees appointed by the Govern.

ment of India to go into the questions of the status of the Indians in the different colonies of the
British Empire. The question of Kenya was likewise solved. Sapru thus successfully accomplished a
noble task which had been begun by Gokhale, Gandhiji and Polak. The problem of Indians overseas
has rightly engaged .the attention of the Liberal Party. Sapru’s partial success further roused the
attention of the people towards its implications.

A still more glorious achievement of Sapru’s political career is the constitution of 1935. Sapru
became the key figure of the Round Table Conferences and other negotiations connected with them.
He along with others had agitated for the revision of the Act of 1919 from 1923 onwards and
succeeded in persuading the Government to appoint the Muddiman Committee to enquire into the
working of the M. C. Reforms in 1924. His minority report revealed the hollowness of the Act and
suggested certain appropriate remedies. When his suggestions were not implemented, he joined
hands with other nationalist parties of the country to expedite the appointment of a Statutory

262
Commission to go into the questions of the working of the Reforms and suggest remedies. Again, his
endeavours succeeded in the appointment of a Statutory Commission a little earlier than the
scheduled time but Sapru saw his attempts frustrated by the appointment of an “All White”
Commission and he resolved not to have any thing to do with it at any stage. Later, he again brought
the Government to his view and there ensued a period of the well known Round Table Conferences.

He was the moving spirit of the Conferences. He was in favour of complete provincial autonomy with
larger powers of self-government at the Centre, except in respect of Defence. Sapru and other
Liberal leaders alone represented Nationalist India at-the first Confefence, as the Gong

ress had refused to participate in it. The refusal of the Congress to attend was not permitted to put a
hurdle in the way, of the progress of the national cause. The idea of the All India Federation was
given a material shape. The second important idea was the idea of responsibility at the Centre. The
third important idea which was an integral idea of all systems of responsible government was that
India must be prepared in the years to come to defend itself. Although much of the work of the
Conferences was whittled down by the ‘Tory Government in the following years, yet the Act of 1935
embodied in substance and form many of the suggestions of Sapru. The new constitution had many
patent defects. Nevertheless, Sapru played a leading part in securing the adoption of the idea of an
Indian Federation and would have liked the country to give the Act a trial, but some years of
confusion were to follow before the Congressmen could be persuaded to look at it.

The last phase of this noble Liberal leader’s career began in 1939 with the beginning of World War II.
Gandhiji and other Congress leaders were sent to jail in the year 1942, which started a period of new
trials and tribulations. The final battle of Independence was in full swing. Frus-tration was writ large
on the face of the nation. The Bri-tish Government was exultant in temporary bravado. In such
circumstances, Sapru, with his friend Jayakar, played the noble role of peace-makers between the
contestants without prejudicing the national cause. Sapru’s forensic genius remained busy during all
these years in subjecting to most thorough criticism all constitutional documents issued by the
British Government from time to time. His advice to Gandhiji and other national leaders was always
sound and constructive. True, the proposal of the Sapru Committee in 1946 failed to solve the
Hindu-Muslim question. But it may be safely asserted that by then it had become almost insoluble.

SOME LIBERAL LEADERS AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS 425

Sapru’s position in the Liberal Party was a unique one. He severed his connection with it in 1931 as
noticed earlier, but never ceased to be a true Liberal down to the end. The reason for this should be
sought in Sapru’s ‘national’ and nonpartisan intellectual outlook. The Liberals looked upon him as
the Soloman of their group, and Motilal Nehru and Gandhiji had no less faith in his constitutional
wisdom. In latter days, all his activities, in the national cause, were associated with such non-
partisan bodies as the “All Parties’ Leaders Conferences” and the “Non-Party Leaders Conferences”
held from time to time. His last work as President of the “Indian Council of World Affairs”
characteristically emphasizes his political role as an Elder Statesman of the nation deeply doubting
the stormy politics of the younger generation but deeply devoted to the marrow of his bones to the
honour, the prosperity and the progress of the motherland,

263
C. Y. Chintamani (1880-1941):—It is difficult to search for a more redoubtable figure in Indian
Liberalism than Chintamani. He became an institution. His association with the “Leader” of
Allahabad raised not only the status of the paper but secured a recognition for Indian journalism. He
was called “the Pope of Indian journalism.” The editorials of the Leader were taken for the views of
the Liberal Party. The paper became its mouth-piece. We have seen enough of his contribution to
the Liberal cause in the chapter on Liberal Ministries. His contributions to Indian journalism will be
found later in Appendix 1, on the Liberal Press.

Chintamani was a self-made man. Though he did not bear the hall-mark of any university, he
changed the hall-marks of universities. He set a standard in journalism. He was a man who knew
how to hit hard but always fought with clean weapons. Neither did he truckle to the bureaucracy nor
did he pander to the ignorance and prejudices of the mob. He did not set the sails of his paper to
catch the passing breeze of popular applause.

F. 54

Presidential Address by V. S. Srinivas Sastri, N. L. F., Calcutta,

1937.

Although he set the Liberal Party on its legs with the help of his pen and tongue, yet he felt in it•as a
fish out of water. His utterances cut keener than those of the Extremists. He was called a Liberal only
because of his faith in the basic principles of Liberalism. He agreed with other members of the
Liberal Party only so far as those principles were concerned. In the exposition of those principles and
more in their application he beat the firebrand extremists hollow. Referring to the ignorance of a
successor in the Ministry of U.P. in regard to a circular issued by his subordinates, he wrote: “Regina
was the result of a few happy moments in the life of her mother—in which her father had no part.”
Can there be a more biting sarcasm? But can it be called the language of a Liberal? This was why he
grew bitter as he advanced in years. He was hated both by the Government and by the Extremists.
He was more feared and respected than loved even by his party.

As a parliamentarian he had few equals. His mastery of facts and figures shut the mouth of his
opponents. He called Gokhale as his political guru, but he had none of the latter’s persuasiveness.
Chintamani resembled Macaulay. Where he failed to convince, he tried to dominate his opponent by
his superior knowledge. His utterances sparkled with wit and humour. They were full of quotations
which came handy both to his tongue and pen. “Accustomed to thunder his opinions”, said Sastri,
“daily, mastering all subjects with a thoroughness that we are accustomed to associate with him,
and having no doubts at all upon any topic, Mr. Chintamani takes his views from none at all. He is, if
an/-thing, an examplar of independence of judgment, and I do not know of any single person whom
he will consent to obey, even though that person may be a Maim-Mahatma.’

SOME LIBERAL LEADERS AND THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS 427

, In brief, Chintamani’s greatest contribution to the cause of the Libe.ral Party, was his paper which
gave it a shape and a tone and prestige without which the party would have been poorer to that
extent.

264
Proportionately enough has been said of Ranade and Gokhale in the body of this book, so their
individual contri-butions to Liberalism have not been discussed.

In this way, individual Liberals made their personal contributions to the cause of Indian Liberalism. In
this chapter only the personality and achievements of some prominent Liberals could have been
assessed. It does not follow that those who have been excluded are in any way less important. The
sole criterion of inclusion has been the main trends of thought and action which they had matured
and undertaken. Even on this basis many others should have been included as Dinshaw Wacha, P. S.
Sivaswami Aiyer, Q. P. Ramaswami Aiyer, N. M. Joshi, R. P. Paranjpye, V. S. Srinivas Sastri, G. V. Joshi,
Lajpat Rai, etc. In fact, a separate book is needed in which the ideologies and achievements of these
fighters of freedom and pioneers of social thought should be rightly adjudged. No book on
Liberalism can afford to exclude Telang, Yajnik, Chandravarkar, G. K. Parekh, H. A. Wadia, K. N.
Bahadurji, Pheroze Sethna, C. H. Setalvad, N. V. Gokhale, N. N. Samarth, L. A. G. Iyer, K. R. Godbole,
A. P. Sen, Cowasjee Jehangir, Venkatram Sastri, M. V. Joshi, Natranjan, Moropant Joshi, Subramania
Iyer, Anand Charlu, Sankaran Nair, N. S. Pantulu, V. Krishna Swami Iyer, Pandit Ajodhia Nath, Pandit
Hirdayanath Kunzru, Pandit Bishan Narayan Dar, Babu Ganga Prasad Verma, Raja Sir Ram Pal Singh,
Moti Lal Ghosh, Ambika Charan Mazumdar, Rash Behary Ghosh, R. C. Dutta, Sachchidanand Sinha,
Lord Sinha, Prof. Karve and Prof. Waze, A. 0. Hume, Sir W. Wedderburn, Dr. Annie Besant, Montagu,
W. S. Caine and Sir Henry Cotton.

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Pandit. Moti Lal Nehru and C. R. Das held moderate views till they
came into contact with Gandhiji. Pandit Malaviya was always busy in conciliating belligerent parties.
He tried to bridge up the differences between the Moderates and the Extremists on the occasion of
their final split in 1918. Gandhiji, however, wrought a change in the lives of these great men and
roped them in the orthodox Congress Party.

M. R. Jayakar came into prominence as a member of the Home Rule League and then as a non-co-
operator. After that he took a turn to become a “responsive Co-operationist.” Later on he almost
identified himself with Sir Tej and acquitted himself as a thorough Liberal.

Any account of the thought and the activities of Liberal leaders who are happily still alive has not
been attempted here. Such are like Pandit Hirdayanath Kunzru, Mr. Justice P. N. Sapru, Sir C. P.
Rama Swami Aiyer, Prof. Waze, etc. Pandit Kunzru is still actively serving the country with his wide
experience, sage counsel and tried statesmanship. The present national Government has rightly
realised his importance and there is hardly an important committee affecting the destiny of the
whole country on which Pandit Kunzru is not called upon to serve. Accordingly, even today he ably
served on the States Reorganisation Committee which solved a complicated problem of far-reaching
national importance. As chairman of the ‘Servants of India Society’ his services can never be over-
emphasized.

CHAPTER XII: EPILOGUE: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF

INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM
The story of the Indian Liberal Party ends with its informal disbandment in 1949. The years since
1918 were an uphill struggle all the way for the Liberals as we have shown in the foregoing chapters.

265
That struggle was carried on valiantly and wisely; between the scylla of Imperialism and the
charybdis of Nationalism, they had charted their path knowledgeably and maintained a palpable
measure of influence upon Indian politics more or less until 1935. But, by that date, Indians in
general had begun to clamour for a more commodious harbour for the national bark than the
meretricious haven provided by the Government of India Act of 1935 and made their want of
confidence in the old pilots more than clear. In the elections of 1937 some individual Liberals had
won their way into the legislatures but the Liberal Party as such was no longer a force to be counted
with in the Legislature or in the country in the shaping of the political ‘destiny of India.

In this latter-day eclipse, the Indian Liberal Party was bed-fellow to the Liberal parties abroad and
everywhere. Indeed, the Inter-War era (1919-39) now seems to have been particularly uncongenial
to Liberalism practically all over the world. We shall, therefore, try, in what follows, first to en quire
into the general cause of the eclipse of Liberalism in the modern world, and then seek for the factors
that might explain the decline of the Indian Liberal Party in particular. Modern Liberalism was the
social philosphy of the middle classes’ and in the first three quarters of the 19th cen

1 See Chapter I of this book, p. 28.

tury, it was mainly concerned with voicing and safeguarding the interests of this class. Its main
tenets were the advance-ment of freedom of contract, enterprise and competition, extension of the
franchise and promotion of peace. The Benthamite gospel of “the greatest happiness of the greatest
number” had gradually broadened out in their hands into a philosophy of common good and general
welfare involving the reconciliation of all competitive and divergent interests in society. When, for
instance, the trades unions grew in numbers and strength and became a political force in the
country with the extension of the franchise, the Liberal parties found sanction in their basic
principles for enacting collectivist legislation like Workmen’s Compensation Acts, regulating of the
labour of children and women and social security measures in general. Thus they succeeded in
involving more humane ideals of social management ensuring social and economic security to very
nearly the whole population. Liberalism, therefore, as Sabine has put it, did not conceive, “of Society
in terms of permanently antagonistic social classes” “except in its economic theory of distribution”.1
With these developments the Liberals regarded their principles as the very essence of democracy.

Outside England, moreover, the growth of democracy was identified with the adoption of written
constitutions within whose framework the political life of the nations concerned operated in a
familiar orbit. These constitutions contemplated a homogeneous society without any irreconciliable
classes, and ensured a large measure of freedom of social behaviour to the individual citizens. They
did not contemplate any regimentation of thought or action by the State. The Liberal State, as
Maclver has said, was thus “multigroup society”‘ affording unfettered opportunity for growth to

1 Sabine: History of Political Theory, (London, 1951), p. 622.

2 R. M. Maclver: The Web of Government (New York, 1947), p. 421.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 481

Sabine: A History of Political Theory, (London, 1951), p. 628. 2 Dr. M. P. Sharma: flirty #fireirt. p.
184.

266
innumerable associations of individual citizens to function in their own way with the sole proviso
that their activities did not run counter to the fundamental concepts of the State or its very
existence. “Liberal political thought”, in the words of Sabine, “developed largely as an elaboration of
two funda-mental social or moral ideas: that politics is distinctively an art of reaching non-coercive
adjustments between antagonistic interests, and that democratic procedures are the only effective
way for making such adjustments”.’

This concept worked satisfactorily in England during the 19th century despite differences between
the Conservatives and the Liberals over commercial policy, Ireland and the reform of the House of
Lords, because neither of them questioned such fundamentals as the sanctity of private pro-perty
and the capitalist economy and the essentials of the British constitution. Both believed in the
involiability of the individual’s liberty, constitutional methods of adjusting political differences, the
monarchy and, in the last analysis, even the Empire. “The politics of the period were like a game of
football. Both teams of players tried to defeat each other but the rules of the game were acceptable
to both and instead of hostility or misunderstanding there was a friendly spirit between them.”2

Liberalism, however, had to face several challenges du-ring the course of the 19th century. The first
came from Proletarianism charged with a new collectivist gospel, specially after 1848 when Marx
published his ‘Communist Manifesto’ and more so after 1867 when his ‘Das Kapital’ containing a
reasoned and documented analysis of the course of capitalistic evolution and its final consummation
in the dictatorship of the proletariat was published. The second challenge came from the new
Nationalism with its corollaries of Racialism,’ Imperialism and Militarism. The third and the

432.

final challenge came in the 20th century during the inter-War period in the shape of Totalitarianism
stridently condemning democracy as a gospel of the weak and exalting the cult of the Superman,
national egotism and war.

The beginnings of these conflicts go back to the era of the Industrial Revolution but we need not
concern ourselves with them here. Even Fabian Socialism, when it arose in England after 1883, did
not present any fundamental antithesis to British Liberalism as it held the view that “Socialism could
be made to grow gradually out of the existing institutions of Society by a process of evolutionary
development”.1 With the rise of the British Labour Party in 1900, however, the clash between British
Liberalism and Collectivism came to the fore. Keir Hardie, founder of the Independent Labour Party,
and J. Ramsay MacDonald contributed a remarkable article (to the Nineteenth Century, January
1899) in which they wrote that “the Liberal Party has done its work. It was evolved to meet the
needs of the past generations. Its ideas were derived from a political philosophy and a system of
economics that have become antiquated; the political application which it made of words of ethical
import, such as ‘right’ and ‘liberty’, give no guidance in solving present-day problems; its purpose
was drawn from a political and social state that has gone”.2 These views show how the social and
political atmosphere in which Liberalism had arisen and grown up was changing and why its policy of
conciliation and compromise could no longer serve to balance the interest of the various classes.

The post-war period made this challenge almost trium-phant. Labour emerged from the War
disillusioned, dis-contented and impatient. The Ministerial crisis of 1916, itself a symptom of internal
dissensions, broke the British

267
1G. D. H. Cole: British Working Class Politics (London, 1941), pp. 121-22.

2 The Nineteenth Century, Jan. 1899.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 433

Liberal Party into two groups, and by 1931 further disorganised it into several splinter groups. In
1924, Labour was recognised as the Official Opposition in Parliament.

This debacle of the British Liberal Party was, however, not a mere matter of internal factions. Nor
was it the result of anamolies in the electoral procedure like three-cornered contests in single
member constituencies by simple majority vote, though this was undoubtedly a real disadvantage. It
was rather a symptom of a sense of the ideological inadequacy of the old Liberal creed in the post-
war world. All its old fighting slogans, adult franchise, Home Rule for Ireland, Reform of the House of
Lords—were by now fulfilled. Embattled Europe had at Wilson’s initiative accepted the principle of
self-determination as an axiom of political organisation and actually embodied it wholesale at least
in the political system of Europe. International peace, one of their other major planks, was placed
under the protection of the League of Nations. But the real problems of the post-war world were
economic and financial, for which capitalist economy was largely held responsible and as the
depression deepened and broadened, dissatisfaction and disillusionment spread. In the face of this
crisis the chasm between the rightists and the leftists widened progressively. The choice now lay for
most people between collectivism and the existing individualist economic anarchy. Liberalism had no
compromise to offer between them. Lloyd George’s device of semi-public corporations, for instance,
to manage British Mines or Power Supply, etc. appeared to the Socialists as only a hesitant approach
to public management when the situation called for drastic remedies, and to the rightists as a weak-
kneed surrender of the keys of the fort to the enemy. After the great crisis of 1931, therefore, the
more Conservative Liberals began to drift to Conservatism and the progressive ones to Labour.
Those who joined the Conservatives accepted tariff reform, the Government’s international and
imperial policies and in

F. 55

domestic affairs, the policy of fighting Socialism to the last ditch.

Events abroad lent these developments unexpected weight. In Germany, the Weimar Republic was
never free from attacks both from the Right and the Left until it surrendered itself body and soul to
Hitler. In Italy bourgeoisie inefficiency encouraged Socialist anarchy until there also Mussolini was
atile to set up his Fascist administration (1922). Socialist Governments were the rule in France also
after (1928) until almost the eve of World War II. The greatest event of the period, however, was the
Russian Revolution of 1917 and the establishment of the Bolshevik regime—the first large-scale
experiment in Communist Government. It is unnecessary to go into details of that experiment for
our present purposes. It is sufficient to say that its triumph over reactionary forces between 1919
and 1924 and thereafter, and its fairly successful reconstruction of national economy not merely
surprised the world but even excited its curiosity and envy, and rendered harmless the malice of
reactionary criticism. Before long, other countries of Europe were seeking to enter into friendly
relations with it and admitted it even to the League of Nations (September, 1934). In short, in other

268
countries also, except in America, the future seemed to be between the Right and the Left with no
well-defined place for a Centre between them! Hence, there is no wouder that the championship of
the basic Libra’ position has since passed to the U. S. A. in the World of to-day.

Modern Totalitarianism was the direct off-spring of much of the political speculation of the second
half of the 19th century. It found philosophical justification for its claims and activities in Hegel’s
Philosophy that the individual found his freedom in his subjection to the State. This doctrine is re-
echoed in Bosanquet when he says that the $tate “may legitimately do whatever is required for the
pre

FUTUItE OF INDIAN AND WORLD .LIBERALISM 43

servation and improvement of the organised life of the coin.

munity and is -the sole judge of what is so required”.’ Nietzsche’s doctrine of Superman is obviously
the parent of the idea of the ‘Feuhrer’ and the ‘IL Duce’ but it also reinvi-gorated the idea of the
Master Race. Trietschke, the German historian, exalted the Super State as helpful to the ad-vance of
Culture.2 We need only point out here that These doctrines ran essentially counter to the Myra’
creed of the 19th century.

Fascism and Nazism, on the one hand, and Bolshevism, on the other, differed in many things but
they were one in being anti-liberal since they were hostile to parliaments, free social associations
and free judiciary, and believed in “struggle and dominion” rather than in -mutual understanding
and concession” as the right method for resolving social and economic tensions.’

Both Bolshevism and Fascism rested on the support of well-knit class organisations claiming
exclusive control of the state and denying the utility as well as the wisdom of an opposition or
alternative party in the State. They claimed the single-minded support by their people of the official
ideology and the right to punish dissent since they pretended to possess the only panacea for all the
ills of contemporary society. Their methods of work were despotic and arbitrary and their
dependence on party conventions, dictatorial fiats, gestapos and regimentation and indoctrination
of the people were the very reverse of the Liberal method. Their seeming triumph in the Post-War
world further lowered the Liberal stock in popular estimation. Against this tyranny of both the Right
and the Left there seemed to be no defence of the

‘Quoted by Maxey in ‘Political Philosophies’, p. 599.

2 Trietschke’s Politics (1897-98), (Translated by Dugdale and deBille 2 Vols. 1916), Vol. 1, p. 36.

s Sabine: A History of Political Theory, p. 751.

A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL. PARTY

vanishing pre-war order. Liberalism seemed to have no place left for it in the social order except
under the wing of conservatism.

269
It will be well to take note here of the fact that the ineptitude of the older political parties or the
clever and violent political manoeuvrings of the revolutionary parties, do not wholly explain the rise
of Totalitarianism between 1917 and 1939. The real reason for their triumphs in the ultimate
analysis is he clear inadequacy of the old Liberal and Conservative ideologies in a world riven by
world forces—economic and political—whose operations could not be coun-tered on the basis of
individual initiative and the familiar democratic strategy. They needed collective handling not only
on the national but also on the international level. The world crises of the time relegated individual
enterprise to a very subordinate role in the world affairs. All this further discounted Liberal principles
in the context of national and world politics.

It has been felt to be necessary to give here the foregoing brief analysis of the decline of Liberalism
in the contemporary world with special reference to England as the Indian Liberal Party drew its
inspiration mainly from English Liberalism, leaned upon it for support in its own national crusade and
could not but be affected seriously by the eclipse of its archetype. It is only necessary to refer to the
regimes of Ripon, Minto and Chelmsford to show how a Liberal Government in England was of
essential help to the Indian Liberals. Conversely the second Round Table Conference conclusively
demonstrated how a change of Government in England affected the course of Indian Politics as has
been shown in Chapter 9. In explaining the gradual decline of the Indian Liberal Party after 1919, this
factor of the progressive breakdown of the British Liberal Party after that date cannot, therefore, be
ignored by any means. It deprived the Indian Liberals of influential allies in England, it strengthened
the hands of

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 4,87

those who were less sympathetic to Indian aspirations, it en-couraged the die-hards of the Anglo-
Indian bureaucracy, while it discouraged the dwindling band of those gracious statesmen of the
Indian Liberal Party who still believed in a peaceful and constitutional realisation of Self-Government
in India under the aegis of the British Empire.

The effect of these world trends can be distinctly traced in the evolution of Indian politics after 1905.
After the inevitable time-lag, India experienced the full force of modern nationalism after 1905 and
its immediate results were the emergence of the Terrorist Movement, the famous ‘Lal-Bal-Pal’
combination and the Surat split which have all been discussed in the foregoing chapters. The
`Montfort Reforms’ and the violent rifts of public opinion in reference to them in the country forced
the Liberals to secede from the Congress. This step may be. taken as the starting point of the Liberal
land-slide as it cut thorn off from the main forum of nationalist politics and deprived them of all
opportunities of influencing its policies. ‘The Cave of Adullam’ may provide security from outside
interference but it also seals the occupants from the outside world. Henceforward, nationalist
politics were to proceed without the advantage of their moderating influence. Indeed, moderation
came to be described as ‘mendicancy’ in Congress circles. Moreover, the Liberals thereby weakened
their position in the eyes of the Government by being looked upon as a political minority and in the
eyes of the people by co-operation with the ‘Satanic’ Government. It cannot be denied, therefore,
that their secession from the Congress in 1918 was a wrong move whatever the justification for it at
the time.

270
Meanwhile, the logic of the ‘direct action’ movement initiated by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920 drove
them further into the political wilderness as time passed. The Gandhian Congress bore considerable
superficial resemblance, despite inner differences, to totalitarian caucuses to command the

allegiance of the Liberals. They were thoroughly out of sym-pathy with its political methods as well
ass with its political ideology to combine with it in the day-to-day work of the national movement
though their ultimate objectives were the same. So after 1923, the decision of the Swarajist Party in
favour of Council entry and its policy of obstruction from within further clipped the wings of the
Liberals and reduced their importance in the political life of the country. The majority of Indians had
by now became thoroughly convinced specially after the failure of the second R. T. C. that Britain
would never concede them Swaraj, and this conviction further lowered the Liberal stock in their
eyes. The deafness of the Coalition Government in England at the time to the statsemanlike counsels
of the Indian Liberals added to this result and it cannot be denied that this was an important factor
in the decline of the Liberal Party in India as it made them lonely advocates of a lost cause—the
cause of friendship and mutual understanding between India and England to which Britain herself
seemed to be indifferent and even hostile during these latter years.

‘The growth of the Socialist Movement in India is still so backward that it can scarcely be described
as having affected the position of the Indian Liberal Party. While Socialists and Communists have
captured sections of the workers at different times, they have developed as independent political
parties only after India’s Independence. Whatever competitive strength the Indian Labour
Movement possessed in politics before 1947 was derived by it from its association with the
Congress. Indeed, it can be said that the Liberal Party down to 1947 helped labour in full measure
and was not aware of any doctrinal challenge from it until at least the Karachi Congress. We can,
therefore, safely say that Indian Liberalism had to face no serious ideological clash with pro-
letarianism and collectivism such as the European parties had had to face.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 489

. Nevertheless, it would be idle to deny that the Liberals drawn mainly froin the intelligentsia and the
propertied classes, had no ideological sympathies either with Socialism or, indeed, with any
programme of mass action. They could not but be thoroughly out of sympathy with the Socialist
economic programme of the Karachi Congress, and with the leftist wing of the Congress and the
Socialist Movement. The peculiar economic position of India under a regime of colonial explitation
often forced them to demand a programme of industrialisation by state poineering. There is in all
this an apparent bias towards a collectivist policy but only an apparent one. Essentially, the Liberal
Party could have no appeal for Leftism in India either within or outside the Congress, and so its
sphere of action was further circumscribed.

In the main, therefore, the decline of the Indian Liberal Party was a result of the mounting tide of
nationalism in India. By March, 1946, Pandit Nehru could say that “we had exhausted our capacity
for learning anything more from England, and in any event we could only profit by contact with each
other after breaking the unhealthy bond that tied us, and by meeting on equal terms.’” “Puma
Swaraj” was now the ideal of the Congress. Militant nationalism dated in India from the Tilakite
days, and had already cut itself loose from the old leadership of the Congress long before the coming

271
of Mahatma Gandhi. By and by, it had grown too hostile to the imperial connection to tolerate even
the golden ties of Dominion Status though its Liberal temper still exhibited itself in its condemnation
of Nazi and Fascist governments in Europe when in the thirtees it came to evolve a foreign policy of
its own. All cooperation with England was, however, suspect already, and, in 1988, Subhash Chandra
Bose, then President of the Congress, did not even approve

Jawahar Lal Nehru: The Discovery of India, p. 368.

of the despatch of the medical mission to China! The Liberals could have no place in such a milieu.

Further, the regimentation of the Congress—the Khadi uniform, the nomination of the Congress
Working Committee by the President, even the previous approval of the year’s President by the
Leader and the High Command, the cornpulsory participation in the constructive programme—went
against the Liberal grain. The distinct popularity of the Fascist tendencies in the country as shown by
the growth of the Khaksars and other similar movements among a certain section of the people cut
the Liberals off from these sections also. They had no ‘Mahatma’ to lead them. They refused to
abandon the policy of constitutionalism and the golden mean sanctified in their eyes by the example
and the precepts of the Fathers of the Congress itself. Meanwhile, their cooperation with the
Government and their seeming acquiescence in its repressive policies was drawing them further
away from the masses.

Another important factor making for the political weakness of the Liberal Party was its defective
party organisation. The details of the constitution of the Liberal Federation as evolved between 1919
and 1927 have been appended to this book under Appendix II,’ and it will be seen from it that they
had no local party associations of their own at the city level like the Congress, not. to speak of such
bodies at lower levels. Indeed, the growing antipathy of the masses as well as the classes towards
them deprived them of that voluntary assistance which is essential for electoral success. “No expen-
diture of money or work of paid agents”, says Prof. Lees Smith, “can keep the party organisation in
health unless life is breathed into it by a band of devoted adherents who retain their zeal during
listless intervals between elections, attend dreary committee meetings and do the unobtrusive work
of

1 See Appendix.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 441

organisation without any expectation of personal award.”1 There was no lack of zeal among the
leaders at the top but they were generals without an army. Even the annual meetings of the
Federation were attended by about 250 representatives from all over India against the thousands
who flocked annually to the Congress sessions! Some of the provinces even had no local branches of
the Liberal Federation!

The political progress of. the country after 1919 increas-ingly put the Liberals high and dry on the
political shelf but, as explained in the foregoing chapters at several places, it has to be admitted that

272
in most important matters, Liberal principles and individual Liberal statesmen continued to influence
the course of events in India even though as 4 party, they were of increasingly little account in latter-
day Indian politics. In regard to education, local Self-Government, commercial and industrial policy
and social reform, Congress programmes were scarcely different in essentials from those of the
Liberals. They were the Liberals who secured the adoption of the Federal principle as a basis for the
future constitution of India in 1931, and in 1931, 1937, 1943, 1947, the intervention of individual
Liberal leaders as peace-makers between the Congress and the Government, or the Congress and
the League, has only to be mentioned to be recognised as vital contributions by the Liberals to
national evolution. In other words, while Liberal ideology remained substantially a part of the
national programme even during the era of the Gandhian Congress, Liberal methods came to be
progressively repudiated. This distinction has to be borne in mind in studying the eventual decline of
the Liberal Party, for it points to the essential fact that India had, after 1919, passed out of the stage
of political tutelage into a consciousness of sovereign nationhood. It does not indicate any essential
repudiation of the Liberal outlook as is indeed

F. 56

Lees Smith: Second Chamber—Theory Se Practice, p. 15.

Schuman: International Politics (5th ed., McGraw-Hill, London, 1953), p. 517. •

obvious from the fact that she is still in the Commonwealth, has adopted a democratic constitution,
and vigorously repudiated violent methods of political action both in the national and the
international spheres.

It is clear from the foregoing brief analysis that, just as in England so in India, the course of political
evolution in the 20th century proved unfavourable to the continued popularity of Liberalism as a
framework of political organisation. Militant nationalism, the increasing vogue of socialist thinking,
the creeping trend towards totalitarian habits of action, the repercussions of imperialist ‘die-
hardism’ in England upon Indian public opinion—progressively circumscribed the appeal of
Liberalism in India even though its main principles had passed into the warp and woof of the
ideology of the more vigorous parties. It was due to the comprehension and assimilation of its aims
and the rejection of its methods that the Indian Liberal Party disappeared from the Indian political
scene.

It remains for us to give now sonic thought finally to the future of Liberalism in India after the
informal dissolution of the Indian Liberal Federation in 1949. “Almost all men”, says Schuman,
“preach liberty, equality, fraternity, personal dignity, social justice, freedom under law and the
desirability’ and necessity of one world. But the same men are so entangled in the loves and hates of
particular nationalisms, ideologies and sectarian solidarities that they seem quite unable to practise
what they assert they believe”, This pathetic observation of one of the most acute students of the
international scene of today, points to both the continued dominance of the Liberal outlook in the
thought of the world and to its ineffectiveness in practice. Bryce, writing earlier, in his classic on
Democracy, observed wistfully, “how ....difficult has it now become to diagnose the symptoms of

273
FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 443

an age in which the interplay of economic intellectual

religious forces is more complex than ever hereto-fore.”] Democracy, the infloresence of Liberalism,
has experienced a set-back, in larger or smaller measure, every-where in the modern world under
the continuing impact of Fascist and Communist totalitarianism. An embattled world, drawing its
sustenance from more or less collectivist economies, is scarcely a suitable stage for the interplay of
that sonorous eloquence, that gracious willingness to compromise on non-essentials, and that
passionate yet mellowed regard for the dignity and freedom of the individual that character-ised the
heyday of Liberalism. Many things that were the unquestioned bases of public life then are now
conspicuous by their absence. Faith in national and international justice, the inspirations of religion
that conditioned all social thought and action, the brave confidence in continued progress to be
achieved slowly, steadily but surely by mutual toleration and good-will—no longer exalt public life to
the nobilities of a high mission. Instead, there are new stridencies of abounding mutual intolerance
and suspicion, unending recrimination and perpetual fear. There seems to be something basically
wrong in society and governments as a whole. There is a calamitous divergence between profession
and performance. The democracies as well as the totalitarian states together keep the world in a
state of nerve-racking tension. Power Politics have reduced the individual to a meaningless speak
and a disconsolate phantom. Modern science has placed such tremendous weapons at the disposal
of the Powers that Humanity is now trembling on the brink of extinction.

All these symptoms point to the urgent need for inter-national harmony and for a renewed
emphasis on the value and dignity of the individual. It is only by ensuring the ful-lest freedom of self-
expression to the individual that human

1 Bryce: Modern Democracies (Vol. II, 1929), p. 657.

culture grows, and this involves a social order in which social, pblitical and economic justice,
freedom of thought, speech and association, and security of his person, property and rights have an
unquestioned and unfettered sway. All this is the very quintessence of Liberalism as it evolved in the
19th century. What they could not achieve then in the international sphere has now become
possible through the t J. N. O.

If, then, the times call for harmony, peace, justice, equa-. lity, charity and goodwill, the need for the
Liberal outlook would still appear to be obvious. It is certain that any gospel of class hatred or violent
overthrow of the rights of the individual cannot ensure this consummation. India has now embodied
these ideals in its national constitution in the form of fundamental rights and directive principles of
state policy. It is today perhaps the freest democracy in the world. Barring insignificant exceptions,
her Government and people insist that these principles shall be acted upon. All this is a tribute to the
great work and achievements of the earlier Liberal leaders of India. They may have failed to found a
party but they have certainly bequeathed a mission to their countrymen—that of moulding the New
India in peace and harmony and of making her a model for the rest of the world, to imitate. The
Congress leaders who brushed them aside during the heat of the struggle with an alien imperialism
have proved to be their aptest disciples. John Dewey has said that the foundation of democracy is

274
faith in the capacities of human nature, faith in human intelligence and in the power of pooled co-
operative experience.”1 Through this faith and through a revival of Liberal tentativeness and
tolerance alone can our world survive.2

1 J. Dewey’s Philosophy: Intelligence in the Modern World, ed. by J. Ramer (New York, 1939), p. 402.

2 B. Russell: Essay on Philosophy and Politics in Unpopular Essays (Allen 8; Unwin, London, 1950), pp.
27-28.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AND WORLD LIBERALISM 445

“The King is dead. Long live the King”. The Liberal Party in India as elsewhere may be no more but
Liberalism in the above sense is eternal. It is true that some of the principles of 19th century
Liberalism do not command such unquestioned acceptance to-day as they did then. For example,
private rights to property, specially by inheritance, have been everywhere limited by almost
exproprietory taxa-tion. The emphasis primarily is on economic equality.

Similarly, the liberty of the individual citizen is every-where circumscribed, often drastically, by the
enormous ex-tension of State regulation on all sides, specially in economic matters. Insidious and
skilful propaganda through the Radio, the Press and the Cinema often reduce the citizen’s
intellectual freedom to a farce. Ideological differences bet-ween the Democracies and the
Communist world have ob-liged both camps to undermine the national independence of smaller
countries by all means that they can think of, such as economic and military aid, economic pressure
and “dollar” diplomacy.

All this is essentially hostile to the Liberal outlook but it emphasises the need for it still more. Love of
freedom should incline us to more respect for the liberty of the individual and the nation rather than
less and so Liberalism apart from its ephemeral programmes has still a great part to play in the
modern world. The Socialist objections to Liberalism “that the political democracy it brought into
being was etsablished on the unstated assumption that it would leave untouched the private
ownership of the means of production”‘ and that it failed to provide for a machinery which could
enable the power ‘to distribute’ to keep pace with the power ‘to produce’—seem to find an echo in
other ranks besides those of professed socialists. They make a

1 Cf. Laski: The Rise of European Liberalism, pp. 243-244.

special appeal to the “fence-sitters” of politics whose vote sways democratic elections decisively
everywhere.

It is probable that as in other countries so in India the future of Liberalism in India lies in association
with one or the other Rightist parties as a leaven from within reinforce-ing the ideals of the major
party, than as a separate and in-dependent party on its own. Of course, it cannot mix with any party
which stands for basic ideals different from its own, namely, democratic governments, social
equality as now interpreted in the widest sense, freedom for individual initiative and enterprise, and
social co-operation in place of class conflict. Basically, the ideals of the Congress Party of a
cooperative commonwealth and a classless society are Liberal ideals.

275
This is perhaps the only answer that can be given to the question we set ourselves at the beginning
of this Chapter.

447

APPENDIX I: THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA

Indian Liberalism may be said to have been a British graft planted in the Indian soil. The Liberal Press
in India, as a necessary counterpart of it was also, to begin with, a gift of the British. The East India
Company at first regarded newspapers “as at best useless and at worst dangerous”.1 Authority,
specially a monopolistic body like the Company was, is always intolerant of criticism, but from 1780
onwards several private Englishmen began to publish newspapers in English’ in the three Presidency
towns. Some of these papers were given Government advertisements and circulars to print, but
most of them came in sooner or later for severe Governs ment admonition and in several cases
suppression for their criticism of the Company’s officials. Some of the papers indulged in scurrilous
attacks on the officials. So successive administrations had to take action against them ending with
Lord Welleseley’s Regulation for the control of the Press providing for the pre-censorship of all
newspapers.

The conflict that now broke out between these English-owned news-papers continued for over
decades. A recent. writer has stated that “the battle for the liberty of the Press in India was not, as
might have been expected, fought by Indians in defence of their own freedom”.2 This was so for the
very good reason that when the battle started, there were no Indian news-papers to engage in it. By
and by, however, a genuine Indian Press came into existence and it did

1 Griffiths: “The British Impact on India’, p. 265.

2 Hickey’s Bengal Gazettee or Calcutta General Advertiser began publicatoin on Jan. 20, 1780. Hugh
Boyd started the Madras Courier on Oct. 12, 1785. Humphreys started the India Herald in April,
1795, and Ashburner The Bombay Courier in 1795.

3 Griffiths: ‘The British lnipact on India’, p. 266.

find some inspiration from this earlier struggle of private English newspaper men against the
Governriient.

Welleseley’s Regulation was repealed by Lord Hastings, a Liberal, who said that “the Government
which has nothing to disguise wields the most powerful instrument that can appertain to sovereign
rule.”‘ But even then the Press often came into clash with the Government.’ These papers, however,
published summaries of Parliamentary Debates and news of events connected with resident Britons,
the Army and the Indian Rulers. Mill complained that “they were useless as vehicles of local
information of any value. . . . (and) were filled with indecorous attacks on private life and ignorant
censors of public measure.”‘ From the Indian point of view, however, their criticism of the
Company’s officials for the letter’s proclivity to jobbery, plurality of offices, favouritism and
corruption was disliked by the Government as such criticism might inflame Indian discontent with it.
Two books’ published at this time in England pleaded with the Government for the freedom of the

276
Press as a means of improving the condition of the Indian Society. Thus, the early Anglo-Indian Press
provided not only a model for Indians to follow but also stimulated the spirit to question and
criticise.

Another powerful urge for the foundation of Indian newspapers was provided by the activities of
Evangelist missionaries such as the Serampore Mission, who had to publish a Bengali paper the
Samachar Darpan, a weekly, and the Digdarsan, a monthly in 1818. Similar ventures were started in
Surat, Travancore and Bangalore. The criticism

1 Home Miscellaneous Series, Vol. 538, p. 5.

2 Cf. Externment of J. S. Buckingham by Adam in 1819. J. Mill: ‘History of British India, Vol. III, 1846,
p. 581.

4 ‘A Sketch of the History and influence of the Press in British India’ by L. Stanhope, London, 1803
and ‘Letters to Mr. Hastings on the Indian Press etc., by a Friend to Good Government’, London,
1824.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 449

of. Indian religions and culture by these papers naturally goaded Indians and specially Hindus to
defend themselves by the same means. The first to take up the cudgels was, as has been mentioned
in chapter II of this book, Raja Ram Mohan Roy who started the Samvad Kaumudi in 1851’ to deal
with “religious, moral, political matters” and offered to publish “respectful expressions of native
grievances”. Sophia Collet calls this paper as ‘the parent’ and Raja Ram Mohan Roy as “the founder
of native journalism in India.”2 The paper defended the Hindu religious and social systems,
demanded administrative reforms and admonished the Hindus about their social abuses. Thus, it
showed a truly liberal spirit and paved the way for social reform and the ‘liberal’ regeneration of the
country.

Later, the Raja started another paper—the Brahminical Magazine, to rebut the Samachar Darpan’s
criticism of the Hindu religion but all the Raja’s articles reveal his respect for reason, and absence of
fanaticism and narrow mindedness. In April 1822, the Raja started a Persian newspaper—the Miratul
Akhbar to publish news and the Raja’s views on social reform. The authorities were alarmed by his
free discussion of social evils. The Raja had affirmed in the pros-pectus of the paper that his object
was

“to publish such articles as may increase their (the publics’) experience and tend to their social
improve-ment. . .. indicate to the Rulers a knowledge of the real situation of their subjects.... (so)
that the Rulers may.. . . find an opportunity of granting relief... . and the people may be put in
possession of the means of obtaining protection and redress from their Rulers.”8

According to Hem Chandra Sarkar, this paper appeared first in 1819. So also says the Christian
Observer in the Indians Gazette of July 1819, p. 95.

2 Collet: p. 95.

3 Margarita Barns: ‘The Indian Press: (Allen & Unwin, London, 1940), p. 112.

277
F. 57

. The Miralul Akhbar was stated to supply information and guidance to the educated classes. Its form
was suited to the needs of the upper classes. An idea of this newspaper can be gathered from an
article entitled ‘Ireland; the Causes of its Distress and Discontents.’

The advent of John Adams re-opened an era of stringency for the Press. On March 14, 1823 he
issued a rigorous Press Ordinance which laid down that no person would publish any newspaper or
other periodicals without having obtained a licence from the Governor-General-in-Council.2 The
Council decided to allow parties feeling aggrieved to appear before the Supreme Court. Foremost
among the objectors was Raja Ram Mohan. A petition was hastily drawn up, signed by the Raja and
five colleagues and presented on March 31, 1823 in the name of Indians. It has been described ‘as
the Areopagitica of Indian history’. Alike in diction and in argument, “it forms a noble land-mark in
the progress of English culture in the East”3

The Memorialists) expressed the unshaken loyalty of their countrymen and gratitude for various
beneficial institutions which made possible the establishment of four native newspapers—two in
Bengali and two in Persian. They stated that the present Ordinance would put a stop to the diffusion
of knowledge, prevent better versed ‘natives’ from communicating a knowledge of the admirable
system of British Government and preclude the ‘natives’ from making the Government acquainted
with the injustice of the Executive Officers.

But, Sir Francis MacNaughten, the Judge who was hear-ing the appeal declared, “If we are to have a
free constitution,

Miratul Alchbar—its issue of October II, 1822.

2 Home Miscellaneous Series 533, p. 219, et seq.

3 Collet: p. 101.

4 For details of the arguments consult the English Works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, part IV; pp. 3-9.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 451

which we have not—let a free press follow, not precede it,” The judge rejected the appeal in
November 1826.

The defenders of the free press had one more source to tap. It was to appeal to the King-in-Council.
The Raja addressed an “appeal to the King-in-Council against the Press Regulations”. Again in the
words of Collet, “The appeal is one of the noblest pieces of English to which Ram Mohan put his
hand.”‘ But the Privy Council also rejected the appeal. Raja Ram Mohan stopped the publication of
the Mirat,but continued Samvad Kaumudi properly because the former cost him more and was
exposed to greater risk from government as “its more critical attitude would naturally excite the
keener suspicion in the breast of thin-skinned officials”.2

278
The Raja was also associated for sometime with the Bengal Herald started in 1829 and published in
four’ languages—English, Persian, Bengali and Nagri. The Nagri paper was headed as Bang Doot.3
Thus through journalistic activities Ram Mohan accomplished the triple work—religious reformation,
social amelioration and political consciousness and they went a long way in liberalising Indian
thought.

Through the press he infused in the educated classes a new spirit which sustained them against the
on-slaughts of the orthodox section of the Hindu Community against the abolition of Suttee system,
polygamy and Kulinism. His newspapers and the work he undertook to support the freedom of the
press in India switched on thy attention of the Indians towards civil liberties and gave them an object
lesson and an ocular demonstration of ventilating their political grievences and seeking justice.

1For the text of the Appeal see the English Works, part IV, pp. 11-31.

2 Collet: p. 106.

*With this paper Ram Mohan Roy’s association remained from May 9, 1829 to July 30, 1829. Dr.
Ram Ratan Bhatnagar’s Hindi Journalism (Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1947), p. 27.

But as pointed out by a recent writer, Kamala Pati Tripathi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy by setting up an
ideal through his dauntless representation of public rights and public good also infused a new life in
the Press of the country. But this fresh feature produced a schism in the press. One section
supported progressive views, all round liberalism and welfare of the people, while the other stood
for superistition, orthodoxy, reactionary policy and established administration and rulers of the
country.’ And one example of this schism is discernible in the parting of the ways between Ram
Mohan and Bhawani Charan who jointly edited Samvad Kaumudi. When the former began to
advocate the abolition of Suttee, the latter withdrew his support and started Samachar Chandrika in
1823. In addition to this, one more `Jami Jehan Numd in Persian was started in opposition to liberal
views.

Lord William Bantinck’s attitude towards the Press on the whole was one of sympathy and
understanding, but on the issue of his ‘half-Bhatta’ order there was a great discontent which poured
through the papers and his Minute of September 6, 1830 for the rigid control of the Press speaks
otherwise and in this attempt of curtailing liberty of the press he was assisted by William
Butterworth Bayley who was of the opinion that the unfettered liberty of the Press was totally
unsuited to the then state of British Dominion in India.2 But Sir Charles MetCalfe completely
disagreed with both these gentlemen and his minute on the liberty of the Press is remarkable for its
broad liberalism.3

This tug of war between the advocates of the liberty of the Press and the Government continued
with varying degree of intensity and the newpapers anyhow carried on their exis

1 Kamlapati Tripathi and Purushottam Das Tandon: (Gyan Mandal Ltd., Banaras, 1946), p. 88.

2 This minute was appended to the Minute of Bentinck, Sep. 6, 1830.

• Ibid., Sep. 6, 1830.

279
THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 453

tence. On November 15, 1851 a new Liberal paper under the name of the Rast Goftar’ saw the light
in Bombay. The Rast Goftar was started by the joint effort of Khurshedji Cama, who was to provide
funds, and Dadabhai Naoroji was to run the paper without remuneration. The paper subsisted the
brain of Dadabhai and sinews of Cama and was started to educate the Bombay public in the
principles of religions and social reforms and in lessons on rights and duties of citizenship and to
fight the forces of ignorance, orthodoxy and obscurantism which put a clog in the wheel of progress.

The immediate cause which forced Dadabhai to enter the field of journalism was a serious Parsi-
Muslim riot. In a magazine known as ‘Chitra Dnyan Darpan’ the editor, a Parsi young man of
considerable ability, made a reference to the Prophet of Arabia in an illiberal manner which hurt the
Muslim feelings with the consequent Jihad. The Parsi Community suffered heavily and no help was
given by the Government. Even the Parsi Press pursued a timorous policy. This pained Dadabhai and
in the thick of the riot he came out with the Rast Goftar. It embarked on “a career of stormy
usefulness as a fearless champion of truth and justice and as an uncompromising exponent of the
forward school of thought”.2 The first three numbers of the paper were devoted to the discussion of
the situation arising out of the riot. The unfriendly attitude of the Police towards the Parsees came
in for scathing criticism and the Parsecs were not spared for their supineness. As a supporter of an
ideal of freedom of expression Dadabhai condemned even those who forced the editor to tender an
apology.

Dadabhai in one of the leading articles wrote, “We were under the sweet delusion that justice had
extirpated tyranny, but during the last two months justice has gone to rest and aggression has had
its free innings”.2

Masani: ‘The Grand Oldman of India’, p. 64. 2 Ibid: p. 65.

A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN LIBERAL. PARTY

Under Dadabhai’s editorship the ‘Rast Goftar’ made rapid strides and from January 1852 it became a
weekly. He continued his connection with the paper even after he left the country and made
England his home in 1855. Later on, the Rast Goftar changed its policy which disappointed Dadabhai.
He wrote to Wacha, “The Rast Goftar is my greatest distress—the institution that I had so fondly
cherished in the hope that it would be for the progress of India and showing how thoroughly the
Parsis arc faithful to the land of their birth and desirous to repay some of the debt to their asylum by
doing whatever little good they can to promote the happiness and prosperity of its children”.’

The period from the days of Raja Ram Mohan Roy till the eve of the 1st War of Independence in
1857 was characterised by considerable intellectual awakening in India. In the field of education, Sir
Charles Wood’s famous despatch of 1854 marked out a definite line of progress. Along with the
expansion of education and diffusion of knowledge, commerce expanded and there was an
increasing recognition on the part of the people of the importance of political and social reforms and
civil liberties. There was a demand for the constitution of a legislature also and for equality of
treatment in the services. An epoch of progressive Liberalism was in the offing. In this general

280
enlightenment the Liberal Press of the day also played a vital role. But the Mutiny changed the trend
and tenor of the times.

One great consequence of this great insurrection was the cleavage betWeen the Anglo-Indian papers
and the Indian newspapers. Hitherto both the ‘White’ and the ‘native’ Indian Press ordinarily fought
shoulder to shoulder for freedom of expression. Now a change came upon them. The frustration
caused by the failure of this grand rebellion forced the wealthy section of Indians to cast its weight
on

iDadabhai’s letter to Wacha, Jan. 28, 1889; Ibid., p. 301.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 455

the side of Anglo-Indian newspapers. The remnants of the old nobility and most of the landed
aristocracy saw no future in adopting a policy opposed to the fast expanding British imperialism.
Hence journalistic Liberalism could thrive now only on the aspirations of the slowly (but distinctly)
growing middle class.

Lord Canning passed a new Press Act (which later on became known as the ‘Gagging Act’) on June
13, 1857 which applied to every kind of publication whatever the language in which it might be
printed or the persons who were res-ponsible for what was put forth in it. Both Lord Elphinstone and
Sir Thomas Munro expressed their opinion against the freedom of the Press in India.

‘The Friend of India’ and the ‘Bombay Times’ continued

to write provocative articles but the Governor-General

treated them with stoic indifference. Of the Indian Press,

the Bombay Samachar, the Jame-Jamshed and the Rast Gof tar

defended the characters of the Indians against its detractors.

After the revolt, the Crown took over the reins of the

Government of India and Lord Canning tried to bring about

closer relations with the Press. In the meantime, the

Gujerati Press defended most ably the integrity of the Indian

character.’ Harish Chandra Mukherji edited the ‘Hindu

Patriot in England with ability and distinction. Through

out the Mutiny he preserved his equanimity of judgment

under a storm of prejudice. About this time, Ishwar

Chandra Vidya Sagar and Dwarkanath Vidyabhushan of the

Calcutta Sanskrit College started the Shoma Prakash. Both

281
of them can be treated as Liberal papers. Their object was

avowedly political and they were decidedly superior in their

tone, tenor and treatment of news and expression of views

over their contemporaries. They rendered yeomen service

to the cause of Liberalism in that they took up the just case

Margarita Barns: ‘The Indian Press’, pp. 259-60.

of the Bengal peasants during the Indigo disturbances of 1860. In 1861 Kristodas Pal became the
editor of the Hindu Patriot and occupied that office till his death in 1884. Through the columns of
the Hindu Patriot, he opposed the levying of the Education Cess and the income tax and suggested
that in their place an additional tax on salt could be imposed. While discussing the functions of the
government, he said that the state did not deserve the allegiance of the people if it did not make the
weal of the community the object of its labours. “... . Loyalty is, in mercantile parlance, an
exchangeable commodity. It is an exchange for value received... . It is because the British
government is a blessing to the country, that the people are attached and loyal to it”.’

In 1861 came the Indian Council Act—the pioneer of the Representative Government in the country.
It stirred public opinion and Bombay came out with the Times of India, Allahabad with the
redoubtable Pioneer, Calcutta with the Statesman, Lahore with the Civil and Military Gazette and
Madras with the Hindu. This growth of journalism of a more general complexion was the result of
the working of the new ilberal forces. The conflict of opinion, the clash of ideologies and struggle of
interests prepared the ground for the emergence of political Liberalism.

Bengal was the fountain head of Liberalism. In addition to the papers cited above Hariharnath
Mazumdar started in April 1863, the Grambarta Prakashika.

In March 18438, the Amrit Bazar Patrika made its appear-ence. It was the joint-venture of three
brothers—Hement Kumar, Sisir Kumar and Motilal Ghose. It began as a Bengali paper but under the
Press Act of 1878 it changed to English overnight. Sisir Kumar, the first editor, was regarded as the
first exponent of the extremist school,: whereas it

I Quoted from ‘The Hindu Patriot’ by Heramb Chandra in his speech on Kristodas Pal Anniversary
meeting.

2 Maiumdar’s Political Thought,,p. 322.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 457

was difficult to class Motilal Ghose, the next editor among the Indian Parties.1 The Patrika, however,
served as a tremendous liberalising force in the post-mutiny period.

It was the mouthpiece of a wide-spread discontent born of a variety of factors—economic, political

and international. English educated youngmen, imbued with western democratic thoughts, saw

282
British injustice in discrimination in the services, inadequacy of representative institutions,
unemploy-ment, soaring cost of administration and resultant enhancement of taxation etc. The
famine of 1865-66 added to the discontent. Above all the constitutional progress in the world
abroad beaconed to Indians to the path of nationalism to remedy their troubles. The Amrit Bazar
Patrika’ in a bitter and sweet way voiced these feelings.

Sisir Kumar’s pen breathed vigour into the columns of the paper to an extent that its contemporaries
accused the Patrika of preaching sedition, but Sisir Kumar’s love for constitutional progress
especially of the pattern of British Colonies was above dispute. He advised Ireland not to resort to
violence for which he had an inborn distaste .s

He was not content with the grant of civil liberties merely, like other Liberals of the times, but
demanded a representative legislature. In an article he pointed out that of three stages
(rudimentary, centralising and confederating) of political growth, Indians had crossed the first two
stages under the British Government and they should be admitted to the third stage of political
democracy, He concluded that, “It is not from any feeling of disloyalty that the Native Press loudly
cry for redress for the people, it is the immediate sequence of their system of government”.4

1 Nevinson: ‘The New Spirit of India’, p. 212. 2Amrit—in Bengali means both ‘necter’ and ‘poison’. a
Amrit Bazar Patrika, Dec. 24, 1880.

4 Ibid., Oct. 7, 1875.

F. 58

As an exponent of middle class democracy, he felt that the middle class alone could safeguard the
interest of the masses and without “taking up the interest of the masses against those of the few
who oppress them,’’’ no association could ever become truly national.

Like most of the Liberals, particularly Ranade, he be-lieved in the industrialization of the country. “To
induce the people”, he held, “to take to agriculture is to reduce a country to proverty.”2 He was
sanguine that India had rich industrial potentialities and suggested that industries like cloth, glass,
cement, tanning, paper, candles, marble works, manure and soap could be introduced in the country
with great profit.3 He knew that no industry could flourish in India if the doctrine of Laissez Fair was
adopted by the Government. Protection alone could sustain the budding industries. He supported
his demand for protection with the contemporary policy of protectionism pursued by the British
colonies for the development of their industries.’

His suggestion for the curtailment of civil and military expenditure and plea for the Indianization of
services differed from those of the Liberals only in bitterness expres-sion. He pointed out that 130
British officers drained Rs. 2,537,800/- annually from the Indian exchequer; if they could be
substituted for by Indians, the latter could do the same work for the tenth part of the above sum.°

For these views Sisir Kumar may be regarded as a Leftist among contemporary Liberals and a little
ahead of his times, but there was not much extremism in him. He said or supported nothing which
was not either said or supported by the later exponents of Liberalism. So if Tilak regarded him

283
1 Ibid., Nov. 4. 1875.

2 Arnrit Bazar Patrika, Oct. 28, 1875.

3 Ibid., Oct. 28, 1875.

4 Ibid., Oct. 28, 1875. Ibid., April 21, 187,

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 459

as his political Guru, the Liberals could do the same. As a vehicle of his views the Patrika contributed
not a little to the cause of Liberalism by stimulating national awareness in the middle class and
organising public opinion on the association-al basis—a step forward from the individual basis which
hitherto characterised the political movement of the country. Furthermore, the Patrika assisted the
various agencies responsible for the birth of the Congress in 1885.

In 1870, the great Brahmo Samaj leader Keshava Chandra Sen launched the Sulava Samachar as the
organ of the Indian Reform Association. As on the platform so in the press, Keshava Chandra
fascinated the people by the favour of his profound and burning convictions. It ran through his
writings and helped in broadening and liberalising thought in social and religious matters.

In 1877, at the instance of Surendranath Banerjea, Sardar Dayal Singh Majeetia started the Tribune
from Lahore with Sitla Kant Chatterjee as its first editor. The Tribune became a powerful organ of
public opinions in the Punjab.

With a view “to prevent ....sedition and rebellion amongst the most ignorant, excitable and helpless
of .... sub-jects” Lord Lytton passed the Vernacular Press Act’ (1878) at a single sitting of the
legislature on a plea of emergency. It empowered the Government to call upon the printer and
publisher of a Vernacular newspaper either to enter into a bond and to publish nothing seditious or
to submit their proof to the Government censor and not tq,print the rejected matter. Any breach of
laws was punishable with forfeiture of security.

Three members of the Secretary of State’s Council recorded minutes of dissent against this Act on
grounds that the excesses of a few foolish journalists were a poor plea for

A Nation in Making, p. 47.

9 Consult Margarita for details of the•Act, pp. 281-88.

such a drastic legislation, that the Indian Government was too sensitive to attack and that the
distinction between English and Vernacular papers was wholly invidious.

Lytton defended the measure on the score of urgency and accounted for the distinction on the plea
that English papers were addressed to the educated class who could choose between the false and
the true, between evil and the good but the readers of vernacular papers were ‘ignorant’ and
‘excitable’.

284
Gladstone in order to oppose the bill introduced a motion in the House of Commons that “. .all
proceedings which may be taken by the authorities under the Indian Vernacular Press Act be
reported to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament from time to time”.’ Gladstone’s
motion, however, was lost.

On January 1, 1879 Surendranath Banerjea became the proprietor and the editor of the Bengalee.
He wanted to place it in the hands of the Indian Association just as the Hindu Patriot was the
property of the British Indian Association and became its free editor. But the Association did not
think it wise to shoulder the responsibility.

The Bengalee was a weekly newspaper. The craving for fresh news was then not general. “I
remember speaking at the time to the head master of a Government High School, a man of
education and culture who said to me that it took him a week’s time to go through the Bengalee
(then a weekly paper), and that if it was a daily paper he would not know what to do with it”.2

The Bengalee was the mouthpiece of S. N. Banerjea. His ‘trumpet voice’ was a signal for silence for
his audiences, and his journalism was not less effective. The Bengalee

1 Gladstone’s speech in the House of Commons on July 23, 1878, Ibid.,22 p. 288; also see Dr. Ran
Ratan Bhatnagar’s: Hindi Journalism, p. 1.

2A Nation in Making by Surendranath Banerjea, p. 50.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 461

bravely opposed the holding of a demonstration in honour of a reactionary bureaucrat like Sir Eden
Ashley. A series of articles appeared in the paper on the topic which made it clear that if a public
meeting were held, there would be a protest against it. The result was that the Town Hall Meeting
which was to be held on behalf of the public was cancelled. It was the first victory of the Bengalee.
Another notable event in the life of the Bengalee was the famous con-tempt case brought against
Surendranath on account of which he suffered imprisonment for two months. He was the first Indian
of his generation to have been sentenced in the discharge of a public duty. On April 2, 1888 a
leaderette appeared in the Bengalee commenting on the proceedings in the High Court involving the
exposure of a Hindu idol in public.

“What are we to think of a judge,” commented the paper, “who is so ignorant of the feelings of the
people and so disrespectful of their most cherished convictions as to drag into court .... an object of
worship which only Brahmins are allowed to approach, after purifying themselves. .. . ? Will the
Government of India take no notice of such proceeding ?”‘

This incident had an impact on the public life of the province and gave an impetus to journalism.’

In 1900 the Bengalee turned into a daily and the scope of Surendranath’s journalistic work expanded
further. It was the first Indian newspaper to subscribe to Reuter’s Agency.3 Surendranath was
connected with journalism for over forty years.

The Bengalee commented upon the evidence given in the Midnapore Conspiracy case (in a subjudice
case) by Weston, the Magistrate of Midnapore. Although the leading

285
Bengalee, April 2, 1883.

2 A Nation in Making by Surendranath Banerjea, p. 80. Ibid., p. 170.

articles containing the comments, was written by the sub-editor; Babu Kalinath Roy, Surendranath
took upon himself the entire responsibility. This was the second case of contempt of Court launched
against him. The case could not be established and had to be dismissed on technical grounds.

The Bengalee never flinched from its duty to comment on matters of public interest irrespective of
consequences. It was deeply interested in the educational problems of the day. The Bengalee raised
vigorous protests not only against the secrecy of Curzon’s Simla Conference on Education but also
against the exclusion of the Hindus from it. Its efforts bore the fruit and the name of Justice Gurudas
Baenrji was added to the list.

In the words of Hume, “ .... the Bengalee became gradually acknowledged as one of the very best
and most just and moderate papers in the country”.1

The Bengalee’s contribution to the cause of Liberalism consisted in successfully protesting against
stern legislation and anti-national activities of the Government and organising and educating public
opinion against them. It upheld the Liberal view-point in the political crises of 1907 and 1918 and
generally supported the Ministerialists2 under dyarchy. Its share in stressing the importance of
promoting local self-government, university education, social reforms and consti-tutional progress,
was laudable. Moreover, the Bengalee laid the beginning of sober, sane and sound journalism and its
standard of journalistic etiquette, integrity and fairness was high. In respect of language,
presentation of news, expression of views, co-ordination of work among different functionaries
engaged in the joint venture, the Bengalee added a new chapter to the growth of the Liberal Press in
India.

Mr. Hume’s article in India, 1893.

2 Report on the Working of the Reformed Constitution, Vol. II, p. 189.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 463

1 M. Viraraghavachari in the Silver Jubilee Supplement of the Hindu, Sep. 21, 1903.

Another result of the Vernacular Press Act of 1878 was the foundation of the Hindu of Madras. G.
Subramania Iyer, its first and one of its most renowned editors, would ever be remembered with
reverence in the history of journalism in India. Six youngmen decided to establish the Hindu. One of
them said,

“An Association which would represent the true state of the condition of the masses to the
Government and their several grievences, and to get them redressed, to suggest to our rulers the
best means of utilizing the latent activities of the people for the service of their country, to get
recognized the claims of the sons of the soil to a proper share in the administration, to suggest

286
modes of utilizing the knowledge and attainments of the educated classes, in fact to induce our
rulers to put into practice the Magna Charta of our rights and liberties, such an Association was still a
desideratum”.’

In fact these words were used to express the aims and objects of the Madras Native Association but
they unmistakably express the policy of the Hindu. At the first glance it appeared to be an ambitious
task, but the paper helped not only in the realization of these aims but incessantly endeavoured to
achieve a good deal more.

Two years after the birth of the Hindu, Lord Ripon repealed the Vernacular Press Act.. In 1883, the
weekly Hindu turned into a tri-weekly paper. It stimulated the interest of the educated classes in the
work of local and municipal administration and expansion of education in Madras. Hume took an
intimate interest in the Hindu which transformed itself into a daily from 1889. But the Hindu really
developed into a powerful organ of public opinion under the daring initiative of Kasturi Ranga
Iyenger.

1 The Indian Press Year Book, 1951—article on ‘Half a century of Indian Journalism.

He set its course by a new compass. Under him the paper even though a congress organ, tried to
abstain from party propaganda. It made a generous allotment of space to news. It published
fairminded reports: Its comments evinced balance, reserve and rtstraint; “As against the emotional
effervescence of the ‘New India’ and the fury and patriotic fervour of the ‘Swarajya’ the Hindu was
reputed for sobriety and steady common sense.’

Before the 19th century rang out, events like the Age of Consent Bill and its critics the Bangbasi of
Calcutta and Tilak’s Kesari created the necessity of an organ of Liberalism which could uphold the
cause of social reform. The place was filled by the Indian Social Reformer of Bombay, started with
the avowed object of sponsoring all sorts of social reforms. K. Natarajan, a valiant journalist and a
great social reformer remained its editor from 1892 to 1940. He belonged to the age and the
distinguished company of Ranade, Bhandarkar and V. S. Vaidya who held the National Social
Conference from year to year, reviewed the reports of social reform associations all over the
country, published pamphlets, organised meetings, read papers, issued questionnaires to gather
public opinion on social matters and essayed for social legislation. Natrajan was in the vanguard of
the social reform movement. He presided over the Madras Provincial Social Service Conference in
1911 and similar conference in Bombay in 1918, Mysore in 1920 and Ahmedabad in 1921. The
fortieth session of the Indian National Social Conference was held under his presidentship in 1927.

The Indian Social Reformer under his editorship re-mained a mouthpiece of the Liberal Party for
about half a century. It was a weekly with a distinguished character of its own. Though political
affairs were not tabooed from its columns, it focussed its attention on social matters and gave

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 465

a direction on all controversial questions of social importance. Its aim was to support the cause and
not to achieve a com-mercial success.’ It upheld the creed of ordered progress, evolution as opposed
to revolution and simultaneous enforce-ment of social and political reforms.

287
As an illustration of Natrajan’s ideas, a reference can be made to his address at Bombay (1918)
where he defined social reforms thus : “It is the prevention of a wastage of human life, human
emotions and human energies”.2 Speaking on the practice of disfigurement in the case of child
widows he said, “We ought to make a distinction between enforced widowhood and voluntary
widowhood. Voluntary windowhood is holy, enforced windowhood is a hideous inequity”.8

Two more powerful journals in the ninetees of the last century were launched to further the cause
of Liberalism—the Hindustan Review founded by Sachchidananda Sinha in 1899 and the Indian
Review by G. A. Natesan in 1900.

The forerunner of the Hindustan Review was the Kayasth Samachar which was brought into
existence in July 1899 by Ramanando Chatterji. But he had to sever his con-nection with it in June
1900 and Sachchidanand Sinha took it over in July 1900. Under the designation of the Hindustan
Review it first appeared in Jan. 1903.4 The Hindustan Review was a standard monthly journal dealing
with political, social and literary articles. “It showed the trend of thought —philosophical, literary
and political amogng the educated classes of India”. “The Hindustan Review is of special value as
lifting the brain cap of India and letting us see the thoughts that are moving in her educated mind”.5
The

1 Editorial—Hindustan Review, May—June, 1948.

2 The Leader, June 8, 1918.

3 Report N. S. Conference, Poona 1895, p. 49.

4 The Hindustan Review—.Thirtyfive Years After’, July, 1934: Speeches and Writings by
Sachchidanand. 1934.

3 The late Mr. W. T. Stead,Editor of iteview of Reviews’.

F. 59

journal served as a medium for political leaders, education-ists, thinkers, philosophers, men of
letters to express their point of view. Among Indian periodicals its position cor-responded to that of
the Nineteenth century or the ‘Fortnightly Review’ in England.

One of its most attractive features was the editorial survey of the events. . . of the month... . and
mostly people read that periodical for this purpose.* His writings bore’ the stamp of his puissant
personality and testified to.his prefound learning and vast information. He had nothing but unmixed
abomination for communalism and was never too satisfied to emphasize it. He was a great
supporter of Higher Education which he thought to be the backbone of society. He said of Higher
Education, “I maintain that much of the denunciation of it—even when it is not interested—is wholly
unwarranted, if not irresponsible”.’ As the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University, his services to the
cause of University education were laudable.

Mr. Sinha was a renowned warrior for the cause of India’s freedom. His journal always fought and
fought steadfastly against administrative tyranny. One example is given below. The Searchlight of

288
Patna published in May 1930 the full texts of two official documents which had been treated as
confidential by the Government and were, therefore, not communicated to the press for
publication. The Chief Secretary to the Government wrote to the Searchlight that the Government
would withdraw all advantages conceded to the paper in question, such as government reports,
gazette and com-muniques would no longer be supplied. The Hindustan Review in its leading article
‘Government and the Press in India : A Grave Issue while analysing the issue’ of the

• Note by Dr. Rajedra Prasad to speeches and writings of Sachchi-danand Sinha (Ram Narain Lal,
Alliahabad, 1934), p. IV.

‘ Convocation Address by Mr. Sachchidanand Sinha in Lucknow University on Nov. 30, I984.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 467

liberty of the Press vis-a-vis the Government, concluded, “by putting up a splendid fight in this
matter with the Bihar officialdom, by sticking to its gums and offering a dignified but powerful
resistance, it has advanced the interests of the Indian Press and thus incidentally helped the cause of
poli-tical progress in India.”‘

G. A. Natesan, a distinguished liberal of Madras, was the founder-editor of the Indian Review and
the organiser of the Publishing House of his own name. “He has been a pillar of public life in the
Southern Presidency, since 1900. The Indian Review under his guidance has been an organ of public
opinion in India, unswayed by passion and prejudice attuned to the highest needs of India’s good.”2
At the age of 26, Natesan brought forth the Indian Review. It was his ambition that the journal
should have both Indians and Englishmen as its contributors.” It was more than fulfilled. The Indian
Review has been remarkable for the number of its distinguished contributors. G. A. Notesan and Co.
specialized in National Literature embracing all departments of life. It published cheap editions of
short biographies of distinguished leaders of the country, speeches and writings of leading Liberals
and symposia of their views on the burning topics of the day. This material is of the utmost
importance to the students of contemporary history.

Moderate in its tone, with faith in Britain’s policy of ordered political progress, the Indian Review
changed its temper when the country was convulsed with the Swadeshi and anti-Partition
movement. Both Natesan and his Indian Review proved of great helped to Gandhiji in his fight
against the arrogance of the Whites in South Africa.

In his work Natesan received invaluable assistance from

V. S. Srinivas Sastri who wrote in a letter to Natesan’s sons

1 The Hindustan Review, Jan. 1930,

2 The Modern Review, Feb. 1949, p. 104. s M. Barns: The Indian Press, p. 317.

A HISTORY OF THR INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

289
that he never grudged the hour he devoted to Natesan’s new venture. “My eye had a flair for the
detection of wrong spelling and wrong type . . . . I cannot read even a borrowed book without itching
to decorate the margin with marks... . I have always traced my premature acquisition of long sight....
to the vigils which I took on myself besides the cradle of the Review”.1

The new century opened with wider horizons. It witnessed the emergence of the well-known
triumvirate ‘LalBal-Pal’ who dominated the politics of the first two decades of the present century by
their speeches and writings. The Press naturally reacted to the new situation. During this period
Lajpat Rai and his friends decided to launch a paper of their own in the Punjab and started the
Punjabee, “to whip up a lazy public opinion, that has steadily grown more indolent during the past
three years”.2 The Punjabee stood for removal of racial dicrimination and never lost an opportunity
to castigate race arrogance. It knew how to ventilate grievences of the people and always effectively
pleaded for protection against official tyranny. It advocated the rapid Indianization of services and
for the aquisition of substantial powers to the people in the Legislature.

The Punjabee did not fail to quicken national feelings by its scathing criticism of measures like the
Universities Bill of Lord Curzon. It was ever vigilant about inter-national events also. Its comments on
the Russo-Japanese War and the victory of Japan were made in such a way as might awaken its
readers to the reality that the days of the invincibility of the West were over and India had nothing
to despair of.

The Punjabee waged a gallant fight against the Parti

tion of Bengal and Ibbetson’s Land and Canal Colony

Letter dated Combatore, July 31, 1933, published in ‘Sixty Years After’ (August, 1933, Natesan
Neladras).

a Feroz Chand: Lala Lajpat Rai’s Life-Story—VIII; The Hindustan Times, Jan. 3, 1954.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 469

Laws. The Punjabee was prosecuted for its com-ments on a case of ‘Begar’ or forced labour, which
was supposed to have led to the death of two villagers com-pelled to work for an official. The
proprietor of the Punjabee was sentenced to a fine of Rupees 1,000 and six months imprisonment
and the editor to a fine of Rupees 200 and six months imprisonment.’ After the judgment of the
Chief Court on appeal was given in the Punjabee case (April 16, 1907), there was a huge crowd on
the way of the prisoners to jail. It was followed by disturbances and a more serious riot at Rawal
Pindi.2

The Partition of Bengal is a landmark in the annals of the national movement in India. Under its
stress Swadeshism assumed an almost spiritual appeal. The Press also fanned the popular enthusiani
to a white heat. The two brothers Barindra and Aurbindo figured most prominently in all
government despatches. The extremist newspapers the `Sandhya’ the Tugantar’ and the
`Bandematratre blazed like a meteore’s flash in the political firmament of the country. So under the
stress of the agitation, the press underwent a mighty change. The extremist section preached openly
revolutionary ideas. Even the Liberal wing of the Press which hitherto had played the role of a

290
general educator and political tutor opened the ‘second front’ in the battle of political liberty. The
Liberal Press played its own role through graphic reportage, caustic comments andedirect support.

The Press Act of 1910 came on the statute book `to bridle literary licence.’* Even Gokhale supported
the prin

1H. W. Nevinson: The Spirit in India—Introduction, p. 18. Ibid., p. 18.

• By the Act of 1910, security might be required from the keeper of any printing press. This Act
drove much of the seditious literature to secret press. Sedition Committee, 1918, Report para, 49, p.
48.

ciple of the bill, since he thought that “the air in many places is still thick with ideas that are
undoubtedly antagonistic to.... the British rule, with which our hopes.. . . are bound up .. . .

One year before the endorcement of the Press Act of 1910, the Morley-Minto Reforms had been
introduced and as we have seen in their shaping the Liberal opinion of India had been largely
instrumental. In 1907 the Surat Split had purged the Congress of Extremists and the Liberals were of
the opinion that the Reforms should be worked for what they were worth. The Indian Press was in a
quandary. Repression was in full swing. The Extremists were in jail. The Press was .highly critical of
Lord Minto’s administration. Liberals like Pherozshah Mehta, Dinshaw Wacha, Gokhale etc. felt the
necessity of a newspaper which would correctly interpret their viewpoint. Accordingly the Leader of
Allahabad came into existence in 1909.

The Leader of Allahabad under the distinguished editorship of C. Y. Chintamani wielded a power
which neither the administration nor any political party or individual of India could afffford to
bypass. Chintmani was the life-spring, the very heart-beat of the Liberal Party of India. “If there is
one man more than an other who has worked steadfastly for the Liberal cause it is Mr.
Chintamani”.2 “Mr. Chintamani has rendered signal service to the cause of Liberalism and he is one
of the founders of the Liberal creed so far as United Provinces is concerled”.2 “As a publicist I do not
think in the whole of India there is any other man as able and as dis

Gokhale’s speech on the Press Bill, Feb. 1910 in the Legislative Council, Gokhale’s Speeches, p. 338.

a Chimanlal Setalvad’s speech, R. N. L. F., Bombay July 31, 1931, p. 27.

e Narain Prasad Asthana:s speech, Ibid., p. 28.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 471

tinguished as Mr. Chintamani”.1 His journalism was one of the chief media of not only popularising
the creed of Liberalism but also developing, shaping and cutting out a definite direction for it.

He began his journalistic career as an editor at the age of 18 and picked up experience in every
branch of the work. He was not merely the editor, he was foreman, proof-reader, reporter, sub-
editor, editor and manager all rolled into one.3 The Leader reflected the personality of Chintamani
which inspired awe and reverence in the men who came in contact with him.

291
In politics, the Leader stood for India’s freedom. It counselled caution and had an implicit faith in
constitutional action and deprecated direct action. It coaxed and cajoled critics and castigated the
government so that it might respond to the popular demands and by ameliorative measures
strengthen itself and the Liberal Party which was wedded to constitutionalism. It knew that a
constitutional party could succeed only under a constitutional regime, but the manifold problems
such as disunity among the people, the minority problem, the sectional and sectarian interests,
social inefficiency discouraged the party it represented from entering upon a career of aggressive
nationalism and employing more heroic methods. The Leader thought that a good deal of spade
work was essential before any talk of direct action could be of any use. That is why, it was never
tired of repeating Richard Baxter’s sound counsel: “In things essential unity, in things non-essential
liberty, in all things charity.”8

Moreover, Chintamani was conscious of the political gains which the Liberal policy had secured for
the country and

1 B. S. Kamat’s speech, Ibid., p. 28.

2 Chintamani’s .talk with N. R. Mehta in an article by the latter, The Modern Review, Nov. 1941.

3 The Leader, June 7, 1918.

‘which, though had been far less satisfactory than had been expected, was enough to sustain the
hope and reinforce the belief that thee path of constitutionalism had not been wholly disappointing.
He was also of the view that the country could have made much greater constitutional advance but
the hostile attitude of the Indian bureaucracy and the policy of non-cooperation of the National
Congress. this made the Leader the severest critic of the Indian bureaucracy and of the Gandhian
Congress. In one breath, it would do both and it did it in a way that would leave the victim writhing.
In 1920, Gandhiji felt the pinch and said, “No newspaper has combated my views on non-co-
operation with so much pertinacity and ability as the Allahabad Leader. It has ridiculed my views on
lawyers expressed in my booklet, ‘Indian Home Rule’, written by me in 1908”.’

The Leader was a staunch supporter of Dominion Status. In an editorial ‘Patriotism and Politics’
Chintamani welcomed the Declaration of August 20, 1917 and asked his countrymen to accept the
reforms for they were prepared by an admitted friend of India. He warned Indian politicians to “free
themselves from the hypnotism of catching political phrases associated though they may be with
high personalities”.”

He remained Minister for Education from January 1921 to May, 1923. His views regarding dyarchy
were stated at length in his evidence before the Muddiman Committee and were daily expounded in
the Leader. Chintamani organised the Nationalist Party, under whose colour the Liberals sailed after
1923, and which adopted “methods of Parliamentary opportunism”. “It is now the one organ in the
province to which educated Indians look for information and guidance

1 Young India, August 1920. a The Leader, May 31, 1918.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 173

292
on political questions”.’ “Members who oppose the Nationalists are promptly pilloried in its
columns,”2 with the result that though Liberalism, defeated at polls, still shaped the public opinion
of the Province and eclipsed other parties and the Leader became a problem even to the
Government which considered very seriously the expedient of promoting or subsidizing a pro-
Government newspaper.3 Likewise its critique of the work of the R. T. Cs was quite revealing.

It is not possible to give a resume of the comments of the Leader on various political events till
Chintamani’s death in 1941. Its exposition and elucidation of political issues and its appreciation or
criticism of political personalities imparted political education to its readers, and infused a public
spirit in them and by initiating discussion on public questions interested other parties to unfold their
viewpoint and thus raise the status of his countrymen in the eyes of the rulers. By its scathing
criticism of the high-handedness of the authorities, it helped to obtain redress of the grievances of
the people.

Chintamani did not believe in the national education which formed a plank of Gandhiji’s non-co-
operation movement. He wrote under the caption ‘Independent Education’ that “Our education
cannot improve by cutting off connection with government and sitting under the grove of mango
trees. Besides, the government being the most powerful agency that a country possesses all new
schemes rely for their success on government support”.4

In respect of economic policy, he attributed India’s poverty to the Imperialistic policy of the
Government and very often dittoed Adam’s remark, “India is the richest of Countries and Indians are
the poorest people”. The Leader was protectionist and a protagonist of the big industries. Its
comments on Labour problems and unemployment also

123Report on the working of the Reformed Constitution, Vol. II, (1926), p. 209.

4 The Leader, Dec. 22, 1920. F. 60

impressed upon the Government the urgency of the problems.

After the Surat Split, Pherozeshah Mehta was at the spearhead of the Congress activities. He was a
terror both to the ultra-nationalist and the anti-nationalist gigues. Lovat Frazer, the then editor of
the Times of India was straining all his nerves to prevent the re-election of Pherozeshah to the
Bombay Corporation.’ Pherozeshah wanted a Liberal daily newspaper which could serve as the
mouthpiece of the Bombay Liberals because the Indu Prakash and the Native Opinion proved
inadequate for the purpose. So, in 1912 the Indian Newspaper Company was floated by a board of
directors including ichangir Petit, Setalvad etc. with Pherozeshah as its chairman. Mr. B. C. Horniman
who had served on the Manchester Guardian and later on the ‘Statesman’ was appointed the editor
and the paper was styled the Bombay Chronicle. The first issue of the paper came out on March 4,
1913. The paper was priced at one anna per copy. It was an unusual thing. The Times of India was
sold for four annas per copy. This anxiety and lavish concern about the first issue and fixation of such
a low price conclusively prove the maturity of public opinion and give us an idea of the importance
that the Press had how acquired for the running of a political party.

293
Horniman was well-known for his impartial judgement and nationalist views. It is said that during the
protest in Calcutta over the iPartition of Bengal he had walked in the procession barefooted through
the streets, wearing Indian costume. Under the dictatorship of such an exceptionally able writer, the
paper acquired an enormous power in the land. The firm direction exercised over its policy by
Pherozeshah Mehta as chairman of the Board, while it added weight and dignity to its expression of
opinion, prevented it from straying

M. Barns: Indian Press, p. 331..

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 475

into wild and dangerous. paths.’ The paper, before long, began to exercise .a very sobre influence
over public affairs, Pherozeshah’s interest in the career of his pet child was in-tense. He was glad to
see that the Bombay Chronicle merci-lessly Attacked cant, injusice and hypocrisy where-ever it
found them. It became a terror to those in authority. The paper rendered great services to the
oppressed Indians of South Africa during their passive resistance campaign in 1913. Gokhale
mentioned the services of the Bombay Chronicle and the Leader in his struggle in South Africa. C. Y.
Chintamani has recorded that Montagu, when Secretary of State for India declared that the Bombay
Chronicle was the most brilliantly written paper in India, all due to Mr. Hornilnan’s talents.
Chintamani also mentions that Horniman was among’ the severe critics of Mr. Montagu’s scheme?

After the death of Pherozeshah Mehta in 1915, the paper threatened to adopt the policy of militant
nationalism. Setalvad became the chairman of the Board and Rustom K. R. Cama—the managing
director. There arose a difference of opinion about current political topics between the directors and
Horniman with the bulk of the editorial staff resigned. A meeting of the shareholders of the
Company was held and the conduct of the directors was criticised for creating a situation in which
Horniman had to resign. The directors were removed and a new Board with Jinnah as Chairman,
Jamnadas Dwarkadas, Jayakar and others as members, was elected.

In connection with the Dharwar Shooting Case, Venkatram of the reporting staff of the Paper made
enquiries and his report was published in the paper. A libel suit was filed in the Bombay High Court
by Painter, the Collector of Dharwar, and Police officers against the Indian Newspaper Company. A
decree was given against the Company with heavy damages. It was impossible for the Company to
bear

1 H. P. Mody: Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Vol. II, p. 639.

2 Bombay Chronicle, Jubilee Number, March 8, 1938.

A HISTORY OP THE INDIAN LIBERAL PARTY

the heavy loss. So it ran into liquidation and N. M. Cama purchased the concern and formed the
Associated Newspaper Company and began to run the paper.

Horniman defied an irate Governor of Bombay and was deported to England in 1919. He saw a
loophole in the immigration restrictions and re-entered India after’ seven years. He made fun of the
Judge in Allahabad and made him look funnier by defying his warrant of arrest.

294
Apart from Horniman’s personal services to the cause of Indian Journalism, he trained a brilliant
galaxy or distin-guished journalists such as Pothan Joseph; Brelvi, G. S. Raghvan etc. “With his
unerring instinct for news, with a sense of duty that never faltered, and a temper that was never
ruffled, Horniman was an unfailing inspiration to younger men who worked under him”.1 No
journalist in India inspired greater personal devotion than Horniman.

The advent of Dr. Annie Besant in Indian politics brought a re-orientation of the national movement.
She wrote to Mehta and Naoroji whether the Congress would take the direction of a National
movement embodying reli-gious, educational and social as well as political reforms.2 The two
advised Mrs. Besant to keep the political movement separate.” To embody the four-fold ideas she
started the Commonweal on January 2, 1914. The paper announced’ a broadbased policy of
liberalism in religion and advocated comprehensive social and educational reforms to make the
educational system more nationalistic in outlook. In politics, it stood for an early grant of self-
government to India to be achieved by union, love and co-operation rather than by hatred and non-
co-operation.

I ‘Half A Century of Indian Journalism’, The Indian Press Year Book, 1951.

Besant: The Future of Indian Politics, p. 49.

a Ibid., p. 50.

4 Ibid., p. 52, seq.

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 477

In 1914, Besant went to England to promote Indian in-terests but she failed because England was
faced with the question of Irish Home Rule. Yet she impressed upon the English people that “the
price of India’s loyalty is India’s free-dom”. On her return she started a daily newspaper to advocate
the same policy as that of the Commonweal. She purchased the Madras Standard and renamed it
the New India (July 14, 1924).* The New India urged that an attempt should be made to win self-
government or Home Rule and said that piece-meal reforms would not serve the purpose. After
Home Rule was attained, reforms would be introduced. In an article on ‘National Education’ she
pleaded that the Banaras Hindu University should be a ‘National’ not a ‘Government’ University and
should have power to make its own curricula and should be controlled by Indians. She wrote in her
paper, “let an Englishman imagine what Eton and Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge would be if they
were held... . by Germans, would they any longer be nursuries of English heroism, of English
patriotism?”‘

The New India and the Commonweal organised the pro-paganda in favour of the Home Rule with
stirring articles and unique outspokenness. The Commonweal popularised ‘Home rule’ by advertising
the personnel and the programme of mock Parliaments.2 The measures discussed in them were
published and circulated. The New India Political pamphlets flooded the country with argument,
facts, figures, making the national cause better understood and enabling Indian

* Margarita Barns ascribed the birth of ‘New India’ to the national movement followed by the
outbreak of the World War I. Dr. Besant categorically denies it, saying that the War did not break out
until August and that India did make a move towards self-government as a result of the War. She

295
appears to be right as War broke out on August 4, 1914 and the Commonweal appeared on Jan. 2,
1914 and the New India on July 14, 1914. It is true that these papers gained momentum after the
War.

1 New India, July 28, 1914.

2 The Commonweal, Feb. 12, 1915, pp. 125-126.

Patriots to think more earnestly of it. ‘How India Wrought for Freedom,’ a narrative of the Congress
from 1885 to 191’4, first appeared in Commonweal and was later on published in the form of a
book.

The New India tried to make it clear to the older men of the Congress that the separate organisation
of the “Home Rule League would in no way weaken the Congress. It assured them that is would not
be started if the Indian leaders disapproved of it.’ And again in yet another issue of New India Besant
reiterated the same assurance.’

The Commonweal and the New India played a distinctive role in bringing about unanimity between
the two wings of the Congress and the Muslim League. Naturally the vigilant eye of the Government
tried to locate the evil spot and security of Rs. 2,000/- was demanded from the New India. After its
forfeiture, a further security of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. Dr. Besant filed an appeal in the Privy
Council and thus the paper could save its security and the Press. Such attacks worked up the national
feelings. Sympathy poured in from all sides. Horniman of the Bombay Chronicle and Kelkar of the
Maratha went to Madras and offered help. The National movement got a powerful fillip. Mrs. Besant
was later interned. This intensified the move-merit still further. The situation was eased only when
Montagu made the famous announcement of August 1917.

The August Declaration of the Secretary of State and the resultant M. C. Report opened a new era in
Indian Politics. It drove a wedge into the Congress- and the nationalist grouped themselves into a
separate party. About this time another well-known Liberal paper was started. It was named the
Servant of India. It was a venture of the Servants of India Society—the nursery of National warriors
and social servants

‘New India, Dec. $1, 1915. 2 Ibid., Jan. 6, 1916. .

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 479

of the country in particular and humanity in general. It was a weekly journal and was first published
on February 19, 1918, the third anniversary of the death of Gokhale. The paper was edited by V. S.
Srinivas Sastri, one of the strongest pillar% of the Liberal Party. The Servant of India in its first
number said that the name of Gokhale

“stands for certain national aims and ideals, certain ways of thinking, and certain methods of public
activity which have gained wide acceptance in the country outside the small circle of his regular
followers. But they are in a peril today of being lost to view in the vertex of popular ideas into which
many streams of varying quality and colour are incessantly pouring their contents. Some use then

296
there may be in an attempt to preserve the identity of Mr. Gokhale’s teaching and draw guidance
from them in the perplexities of public life”.

Through the paper the co-operation of Gokhale’s friend and associates was sought so that a great
tradition might be maintained. The paper received the requisite co-operation and contributed
immensely to the growth and integration of Liberal thought and philosophy.

To the same Servants of India Society goes the credit of launching another Liberal paper, entitled the
Hitavad of Nagpur which also incessantly and worthily expounded the Liberal creed.

In fact, the inauguration and working of dyarchy formed the heyday of the Liberal Party. Mahatma
Gandhi’s emergence in Indian politics threw them into the second line of defence. But credit has got
to be given to them that even from that position, their political philostiphy, social thought and their
activities in implementation thereof contributed not a little to the constitutional advance and social
amelioration of the land. The Liberal Papers tried to keep intact their policy and adhered to their
creed and reacted according

to the situations created by new acts, movements and gestures by the British Government. No
importalit new Liberal organ belongs to the post-dyarchy period. Mention may however be made of,
the Pioneer during the editorship of Mr. F. W. Wilson when it also put in its quantum of contribution
to Liberal policy. One example of its attitude may be cited to point out the change in the policy of
the paper. In respect of the Searchlight incident referred to above, the Pioneer in an editorial under
the heading ‘A Foolish Government’ wrote,

“The action of the government is childish and if there was the slightest real element of popular
control, the people responsible for the letter which is signed by the Chief Secretary to the
Government should be im-mediately dismissed from office”.

REVIEW :

Now we are in a position to recapitulate the services of the Liberal Press to the growth of Indian
Liberalism. The first and foremost services of the Liberal press consisted in that it gave a form and a
shape to Liberal ideology. It functioned as a School of Liberal politics. It enunciated the Liberal creed
and in its light viewed and reviewed the day-to-day events—political, social, economic and religious.
It laid down one particular point of view of looking at different questions of the day. Now there
could be no mistaking about it. Even an outsider could have a definite idea of the Liberal approach to
things and events and if felt attracted by its charm was free to own it.

By evolving a particular perspective of looking at things, it inaugurated a way for others. Thus the
Liberal approach was followed by the orthodox approach, the extremist approach and other
approaches with slight or wide variations. When people see one yard-stick of measuring things, they
invent others according to their ingenuity. Thus the Liberal press by the enunciation of its own
viewpoint initiated dis

THE LIBERAL PRESS IN INDIA 481

297
cussion of political and social questions and thus helped to sweep off not only the prevailing
intellectual torpor, but called forth the unused ingenuity and inventiveness of the nation which
would otherwise have died out or abused in a wrong way.

The Liberal Press acted as a social educator, a political tutor, a religious teacher and an economic
adviser to the educated classes of the country. Through them, the new enlightenment filtered down
into the masses. When the fullest adumbrations of politics reached the educated classes and
through them the masses, there was all round national awakening.

The Liberal Press by its keen vigilance served as a check, however feeble, on the conduct of the
Government despite its alien character. When Delhi and Whitehall saw in the tone arid tempo of the
Liberal Press the trend of Indian politics, they more often than not tried to attune their policy to it.
‘Two examples will suffice to prove this. Holding of the first R. T. C. even before the publication of
the Simon Report and the summoning of the third after a Government. declaration to the contrary,
were taken up under the pressure of the Liberal Press.*

Not is this all. The Liberal Press did something more. When the Congress movements—non-co-
operation, civil disobedience, etc. were in the fullest swing, the Liberal press most heroically and in
an essentially national spirit tried to criticise the non-co-operation and other programmes of the
Gandhian Congress to keep them on the right path. And even Gandhiji saw wit in that comment and
criticism and in the Thirties and Forties, the Liberal leaders and their Press gained the honourable
position of advisers to Gandhiji and other Congress leaders.

• See details in Chapter IX.

F. 61

In the very nature of things, it is impossible to assess the exact measure of the influence exercised by
the Liberal Press in the tumultuous years from 1942 to 1947, on the views and decisions of either
the Congress or the Government. But its role as the uncompromising advocate of the immediate
grant of Dominion Status to India, its unflinching oppossition to the Government’s policy of
repression, and despite political / differences, its championship of the rights of the Congress all were
undeniably great national services.

483

APPENDIX II: CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL

FEDERATION OF INDIA
(As determined by Resolutions passed by the Federation

at its sessions held in the years 1919, 1920, 1923,

1924, 1925 and 1927)

298
1. The object of the National Liberal Federation of India and its component organizations is the
attainment by constitutional means of Swaraj (Responsible Self-Government and Dominion Status
for India) at the earliest possible date.

The Federation and its component organizations will aim at a higher standard of national efficiency
by means of administrative reforms, the wider spread of education, the improvement of public
health, economic development, the promotion of inter-communal unity and the amelioration of the
condition of the backward classes of the population.

2. The Indian Association and the Bengal National Liberal League, Calcutta; the National Liberal
Association of Western India, Bombay; the Madras Liberal League, Madras; the United Provinces
Liberal Association, Allahabad; the Punjab Liberal League, Lahore; the National Liberal League of the
Central Provinces, Nagpur; the Berar Liberal League, Akola : the Deccan Sabha, Poona, and other
Liberal Associations or League which may adopt the objects and methods of the National Liberal
Federation and may be recognised in this behalf by the Indian National Liberal Council shall be
component parts of the National Liberal Federation of India.

3. The work of the Federation shall be carried on between one annual session and another by a
council called

the Indian National Liberal Council, consisting of the office.

bearers, five members nominated by the President and not more than twenty five members from
each province elected by the Federation at the annual session.

4. The office-bearers shall be the President of the last previous annual session of the
Federation, who shall be the Chairman of the Council; the ex-President, who shall be Vice-Chairman,
and one or more General Secretaries.

5. Every member of the Council shall pay an annual subscription of Rs. 25/-.

6. The member of the Associations or Leagues which are component parts of the Federation
and such other persons as may be elected by their committees are eligible for membership of the
annual session of the Federation. Every member who attends a session shall pay such fee as may be
fixed by the reception committee.

7. The Indian National Liberal Council is authorized to set up a working committee and to
delegate to it such functions as it may deem fit, and further, to constitute from time to time standing
or special committees to deal with specific subjects or matters. Standing and special committees
may co-opt as members Liberals as well as other persons who approve of the general policy of the
Federation, but do not belong to any Liberal organization. The number or co-opted members may
not exceed one-third of the total number of members of a committee.

8. Every reception committee shall remit to the general secretary or secretaries after the
conclusion of the annual session the equivalent of fifty pounds sterling for financing work in England
in the furtherance of India’s cause.

299
485

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contemporary Sources:

A --IR E PORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL. I.I TIER A I,

FEDERATION OF INDIA (1918-1945)

1. The Moderate Party Conference, Bombay, (Nov. 1 gi 2,

1918).

2. —do— Calcutta, (Dec. 30,

31, 1919 and Jan. 1, 1920).

3. National Liberal Federation of India, Madras, (Dec. 29, 3C

& 31, 1920).

4. —do— Allahabad (Dec. 28.

29 Sc 30, 1921).

5. —do— Nagpur (Dec. 27, 28

& 29, 1922).

6. —do— Poona (Dec. 27 & 28,

1923).

7. —do— L.ucknow (Dec. 26,

27 Sc 28, 1924).

8. —do— Calcutta (Dec. 28,

29 & 30, 1925).

9. —do— Akola (Dec. 27, 28

& 29, 1926).

10. —do— Bombay (Dec. 27,

28 Sc 29, 1927).

11. —do— Allahabad (Dec. 30

& 31, 1928).

300
 12. —do— Madras (Dec. 29, 30

& 31, 1929).

13. —do— Bombay (July 31 and

‘ Aug. 2, 1931).

14. —do— Calcutta (April IS,

16 & 17, 1933).

15. —do— Madras (Dec. 26,

27 & 28, 1933).

16. —do— Poona (Dec. 28, 29

& 30, 1934).

17. —do— Nagpur (Dec. 28, 29

& 30, 1935).

18. —do-- Lucknow (Dec. 29,

30 8c 31, 1936).

19. National Liberal Federation of India, Calcutta (Dec. 29, 30

& 31, 1937).

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25. Silver —do

-do

-do

-do

301
-do—

Jubilee Session Bombay (Dec. 29 & 30, 1938).

Allahabad (Dec. 27,

28 & 29, 1939).

Calcutta (Doc. 28,

29 & 30, 1940).

Madras (Dec. 26, 27

& 28, 1941).

Bombay (Dec. 28 & 29, 1943).

of the National Liberal Federation, Lahore, (March 17. & 18, 1915).

REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE U. P. LIBERAL

CONFERENCE (1921-1936)

Specially: The Eighth U. P. Liberal Conference, Allahabad, (Oct. 21 & 22, 1933).

The Ninth U. P. Liberal Conference, Gorakhpore, 1935.

The Tenth U. P. Liberal Conference, Lucknow, 1936.

Constitutional Proposals of the Sapru Committee (Padma Publications Ltd., Bombay-2) (date not
given).

B--REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL SOCIAL

CONFERENCES (1895-1927)

Specially:

The Ninth Natioal Social

Conference, Poona, (Dec. 29 & 31,

1895).

The Eleventh

The Twelfth

• The Fourteenth

The Sixteenth Indian

The Thirtieth /I

302
—do— Amraoti, (Dec. 30,

1897).

—do— Madras, (Jan. 1, 1899).

—do— Lahore, (Dec. 30, 1900).

—do-- Ahmedabad, (Dec. 24

& 25, 1902).

—do— Lucknow, (Dec. 27,

1916).

Reports of Bombay Provincial Social Conferences held at Bijapur, 1918; Mysore, 1920, Ahmedabad,
1921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 487

C-REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

With Special Reference to:

Bombay Congress of 1885; Calcutta Congress of 1886; Madras Congress of 1887; Allahabad Congress
of 1888; Bombay Congress of 1889; Calcutta Congress of 1890; Allahabad Congress of 1892; Lahore
Congress of 1893; Poona Congress of 1895; Madras Congress of 1898; Lucknow Congress of 1899;
Bombay Congress of 1904; Banaras Congress of 1905; Calcutta Congress of 1906; Surat Congress of
1907; Madras Congress of 1908; Calcutta Congress of 1911; Lucknow Congress of 1916; Calcutta
Congress of 1917; Delhi Congress of 1918; Amritsar Congress of 1919; Nagpur Congress of 1920;
Belgaum Congress of 1924; Kanpur Congress of 1925; Karachi Congress of 1931; Lucknow Congress
of 1935;,Faizpur Congress of 1936.

All Parties Conference, 1928: Report of the Committee (Nehru

Report).

D—GENERAL REPORTS AND DIGESTS

(a) The Indian Annual Register (1924-1947)

(i) The Indian Quarterly Register, Vol. If (1924)

(ii) The Annual Register Vol. I (1932)

(iii) —do—. Vol. I (1941)

(iv) —do— Vol. I (1942)

(v) —do— Vol. I (1943)

303
(vi) —do— Vol. I (1944)

(vii) —do-- Vol. II (1944)

(h) The Indian Year Book: 1921; 1922; 1923.

The Indian & Pakistan Year Book, 1948; 1949; 1950.

(c) The Indian Press Year Book, 1951; 1952; 1953.

E—GOVERNMENT REPORTS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Papers relating to Constitutional Reforms in India (1908), Vol. III, No. 1477—letters dated March 11
and 24, 1908.

Memorandum by Hon’ble Mr. G. K. Gokhale, C.I.E., No. 144, 1481, XXIX, Vol. III.

Papers relating to Constitutional Reforms in India (Calcutta, 1908).

Final Report of the Royal Commission (1897) Part IV, (Welby Commission) printed in London, 1900.

Third Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the affairs of the East India Company,
1773.

Fifth Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the affairs of the East India Company,
1812.

Reports of the Indian Famine Commissions Calcutta, 1880, 1898 Sc 1901.

Report of the Indian Decentralisation Commission, 1909.

“ Report of the Indian Educational Commission of 1882 (Hunter Commission).

Report of the Indian Universities Commission, 1903. Report of the Dacca University Committee,
1912.

Report of the Calcutta University Commission (Sadler Commission) (1917-1919), I, II, III, IV Rc VIII
Volumes.

Hartog Committee Report, Oct. 1929. Sedition Committee Report, Calcutta, 1918. Report on the
Bengal Detenus, 1918. Montagu•Chelmsford Report, 1918.

Reports of:

The Franchise Committee and the Committee on Division of Functions (1919).

Fourth Despatch on Indian Constitution Reforms (Division of Functions), 1919.

Revised Lists of All India Provincial and Transferred Subjects.

Fifth Despatch on Indian Constitutional Reforms (Franchise) (1919).

304
Disorders Inquiry Committee Report, 1919.1920.

Report of the Reforms Enquiry Committee, (Delhi) (Muddi-man Committee) (Government of India
Press, 1925).

Indian Statutory Commission Report (Simon Commission) 2 Volumes, 1930.

Report of the first Indian Round Table Conference (Plenary Session) 12th Nov., 1930 to 19th Jan.,
1931.

Report of the Proceedings of Sub-Committee No. 1 (Federal Structure).

Report of Indian Round Table Conference (Second Session) 7th Sep., 1931 to 1st December, 1931.

Report of the proceedings of Federal Structure Committee and Minorities Committee, Vol. I, II and
III.

Indian Franchise Committee (5 Volumes)—Memoranda submitted by Local Governments, Provincial

Franchise Committees in reply to Indian Franchise Committee’s Questionnaires, (Calcutta, 1932).

Report of the Indian Round Table Conference (Third Session) Nov. 17, 1932 to Dec. 24, 1932.

Report of joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform (Session 1933-34) Vol. I (Part I and Part
II).

B1BLIOGIAPHY 489

Reports of the proceedings of the V. P. Legislative Council .1920-1926.

Reports of ‘the proceedings of the Bombay Legislative Council, 1920-1926.

Reports of the proceedings of the Madras Legislative Council, 1920-1926.

Reports of the proceedings of the Bengal Legislative Council, 192(1-1926.

Report on the Working of the Reformed Constitution, 2 Volumes, (1923 and 1926).

Reports of the proceedings of the Central Assembly (1920-1923). Council of State Debates (1937-
1939).

India’s Parliament: Vol. II, III, V, VIII, IX & X (selections from the proceedings of the Legislative
Assembly and the Council of State, prepared by the Director, Central Bureau of Information
Government of India) (From Simla Session of September 1921—to the Delhi Session on the 20th
January, 1925).

Parliamentary debates: Vol. 377, 1941-1942.

House of Commons: Vol. CCCLX XVIII, 1942; Vol, CCCLXXXVII, 1943; Vol. CCCLXXXIX, 1943.

Parliamentary Debates.

House of Lords-1909, Vol. I (Feb. 16 to May 26). India in 1919;

305
PP

1925.26;

„ 1920; 1921-22; 1922-23; 1923-24; 1924-25’;

1927.28; 1928-29; 1929-30.

F—REMINISCENCES, RECOLLECTIONS, MEMOIRS, BIOGRAPHIES

AND AUTOBIOGRAPHIES

Atkinson: Jermy Bentham: His Life & Work (London, 1905).

Narendra Nath Chatterjee: Life of Raja Rammohan Roy (In Bengali) Calcutta, 1881.

Sophia Dobson Collet: Life & Letters of Raja Rammohan Roy, edited by Heramb Chandra Sarkar,
Calcutta, 1913.

Mary Carpenter: The last days in England of Rammohan Roy, London, 1866 (reprinted by the
Rammohan Library, Calcutta 1915).

The Father of Modern India (The Commemoration Volume of Rammohan Roy Centenary), Calcutta,
1933.

Ramanand Chatterjee: Rammohan Roy and Modern India, Calcutta, 1918.

Rev. K. S. Macdonald: Rammohan Roy, the Bengali Religious Reformer, Calcutta, 1879.

Sitanath: Autobiography, Calcutta, 1943.

Thomas Edwards: Biography of Hepry Derozio 18; 1884. F. 62

Lucien Wolf: Life of the first Marquess of Ripon, 2 Vols. 1921. Romain Rolland: Life of Ram Krishna.

„ : The Prophets of the New India (contain

ing studies of Sri Ram Krishna and Swami Vivekanand, translated by E. S. MaIcoln-Smith, London,
1930).

Swami Abhedanand: Swami Vivekanand and His Work in America, Advaita Ashrama, Almora, 1937.

The Life of Swami Vivekanand by His Eastern & Western Disciples, Advaita Ashrama (4th ed., 1949).

Dayanand Commemoration Volume; edited by H. B. Sarda, 1933.

Vishwa Prakash: Life and Teachings of Swami Dayanand, Allahabad, 1935.

Sri Aurobindo: Bankim, Tilak and Dayanand, Calcutta, 1940.

306
The Autobiography of Maharshi Debendra Nath Tagore-translated by Satyendranath Tagore,
Calcutta, 1909.

P. C. Mazoomdar: The Life and Teachings of Keshab Chandra Sen, 1931.

Dinbandhu Sanyal: Life of Dwarkanath Mitra, 1883.

G. A. Natesan & Co. : Mrs. Annie Besant. A Sketch of Her Life and Services to India, 1918.

Sri Prakash: Annie Besant as Woman and Leader, 1941.

-Mrs. Besant: How India Fought for Freedom, Madras, 1915.

H. P. Mody: Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, 2 Vols., Bombay, 1921.

R. P. Masani: Dadabhai Naoroji, The Grand Old Man (Allen & lJnwin, 1939).

D. G. Karve: Ranade, The Prophet of Liberated India, Poona, 1942.

Kellock: Mahadeo Govind Ranade, Patriot and Social Servant (Builders of Modern India Series)
Calcutta, 1926.

T. K. Shahani: Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1st ed., Bombay, 1929). Hoyland: Gopal Krishna Gokhale,
Calcutta, 1933.

V. S. Srinivas Sastri: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, (The Banglore Printing & Publishing ,House, 1937).

J. B. Raju: Gokhale.

Naik: Krishna Trimbak Telang: The Man and His Times, Madras (G. Natesan) (Year not given).

D. A. Athalye: The Life of Lokmanya Tilak, Poona, 1921.

Kelkar: Life and Times of Tilak, 1928. The Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon’ble Maxmuller, edited by his
wife, London, 1902.

B. C. Pal: Memoirs of My Life & Time, (1857-1884), Calcutta, 1932.

J. N. Gupta: The Life & Work of Ramesh Chandra Dutta, London, 1911.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 491

S. K. Rat Cliffe: Sir William Wedderburn and the Indian Reform Movement (Allen & Unwin), 1923.

Gopal Krishna Devadhar, edited by Dr. H. N. Kunzru, S. I. S., Poona, 1939.

Sardar Jogendra Singh: B. M. Malabari, London, 1914.

W. Wedderburn: A. O. Hume (T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1913),

• S. N. Banerjea: A Nation in Making, (Oxford University Press, 2nd imp., 1925).

307
Feroze Chand: Lala Lajpat Rai’s Life Story—published in the Hindustan Times in Sunday Editions in 12
articles from Nov. 15, 1953 to Jan. 31, 1954.

V. S. Srinivas Slistri: Thumb Nail Sketches, edited by T. N. Jagdisan, Madras, 1946.

The Indian Nation Builders, Ganesh & Co., (5th ed., Madras in 3 parts) Al Kafir: Pillars of the Nation,
Congress Press, Delhi, 1928.

Dr. Ambedkar: Ranade, Gandhi & Jinnah (Thacker & Co., Calcutta, 1943).

Viscount Morley: Recollections in two volumes, London, 1918. Ronaldshay: The Life of Lord Curzon, 3
Vols., London, 1928. _,...Lovat Frazer: India under Curzon and After, 1911.

The Marquis Curzon of Kedleston: British Government in India (The Story of Viceroys & Government
Houses) Vol. IL London, 1925.

Mary, Countess of Minto: India, Minto and Morley (MacMillan, London, 1934).

John Buchan: Lord Minto, A Memoir; (London, 3rd imp., 1924).

E. S. Montagu: An Indian Diary, London, 1930.

Lady Betty Balfour: Personal and Literary Letters of Lord Lytton, 2 Vols., 1906.

_.- Sir Henry Cotton: New India, 1885.

Sir A. C. Lyall: Life of Lord Dufferin, 1905.

/Sir Michael O’Dwyer: India As 1 Knew It, 1925.

J. Nehru: An Autobiography, London, 1r6.

Subhas Chandra Bose: The Indian Struggle, Calcutta, 1935.

C. H. Setalvad: Recollections Sc Reflections, (Padma Publications, Bombay, 1946).

Nirad C. Chaudhuri: The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, (London, 1951).

M. K. Gandhi: My Experiments with Truth, Ahmedabad, (1940).

D. G. Tendulkar: Mahatma, Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Bombay), VIII Volumes

(1951-1953).

S. Radha Krishnan: Mahatma Gandhi—Essays & Reflections on His Life and Work by various authors,
‘London, 1939.

G-4PLECHES AND WRITINGS

The English Works of Raja Rammohan Roy in 1 Vol. (Allahabad ed., 1905).

Speeches and Writings of Dadabhai Naoroji (2nd ed., Natesan, Madras, 1917).

308
Speeches of Gopal Krishna Gokhale (3rd ed., Natesan, Maelras, Feb., 1916).

Bal Gangadhar Tilak: His Writings and Speeches (3rd ed., Ganesh & Co., Madras, July, 1922).

Writings and Speeches of Hon’ble G. V. joshi, Poona, 1912.

Speeches and Writings of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, edited by C. Y. Chintamani (The Indian Press,
Allahabad, 1903).

Speeches by Dr. Rash Behary Ghose: Calcutta, 1915.

Speeches and Writings of Sir William Wedderburn (Natesan, Madras).

The Kenya Problem: A selection from the speeches and writings of the Rt. Hon’ble V. S. Srinivas
Sastri, P. C. (The S. 1. S., Poona), (Date not given).

Indian Speeches (1907-1909) by Viscount Morley, (Mac-Millan, London, 1909).

Speeches and Writings by Sir Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Arya Bhushan Press, Poona, 1911.

The English Works of Raja Rammohan Roy in 6 Vols., edited by Kalidas Nag and Debojyoti Burman,
Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, Calcutta (1945-1951).

Burke’s speech on conciliation with America (edited by F. G. Selby, MacMillan, 1949).

Speeches and Minutes of Kristodas Pal (1867-81) edited by Ram Chandra Palit (1882).

Reminiscences, Speeches and Writings of Sir Gurdas Banerjee, Calcutta, 1921.

Speeches of Rajendra Lal Mitra, edited by Raj Yogeshwar Mister (1894).

Miscellaneous writings of Mr. Justice Ranade, 1915.

Congress Presidential Addresses, 2 Vols. (1885-1934) (Natdan Madras, 1935).

Speeches and Writings of Dr. Annie Besant (Natesan, Madras, 3rd. ed., 1921).

Convocation Addresses, edited by Purushottam Das Tandon, Allahabad, 1936.

Speeches and Writings of Sarojini Naidu (Natesan, Madras, 1919).

Letters of Rt. Hon’ble V. S. Srinivas, edited by T. N. jagdisan, Madras, 1944.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 493

Sir T. Raleigh: Lord Curzon in India (1906).

C. Y. Chintamani: Indian Politics since Mutiny, (Allahabad, 1937). The March of a Nation, A collection
of the most important speeches of Qaid-i-Azam, M. A. Jinnah, of Akhtar.

Speeches and Writings of M. K. Gandhi, Madras, 1917. Speeches on Indian Questions by Rt. Hon’ble
Mr. Montagu: Natesan, Madras.

309
Speeches and Writings of Sachchidanand Sinha, Allahabad, 1934.

H-PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS

Asiatic journal—Jan. 1824; Sep., Dec. 1833; May, Aug., 1838. The Asiatic Intelligence, Oct., 1836.

Christian Observer, Aug. 1832.

Indian Gazette, March 29, 1833.

The Bengal Spectator, Dec. 15, 1842; Jan. 15, 1843. Mirat-ul-Akhbar, Oct. 11, 1822.

Monthly Repository for 1823, Vol. XVIII.

The Friend of India, Oct. 1, 1840, March 16, 1843.

The Englishman, June 18, 1870.

Indian Mirror, Aug. 7, 1902.

Bengal Harakaru, Feb. 13, 1843; March 2, 1843.

The Maratha, June 24, 1906.

Commonwealth, Feb. 12, 1915.

New India, July 23, 1914.

Calcutta Review Vols. CXX1V to CXXX (1907-12). Modern Review, from 1913 upto date.

The Hindustan Review, 1910-1934.

Indian Review, 1905-1949 (death of Natesan).

Young India (1919-1922) with supplement, Madras, 1924.

(1924-1926) Pt PI„1927.

fl (1927-1928) 1935.

Bengalee, April 2, 1883.

Servant of India, Aug. 13, 1925.

The Times of India, Dec. 18, 1908.

Amrit Bazar Patrika, Oct. 7, 1875, Oct. 28, 1875, Nov. 4, 1875. The Leader, Old Files from 1918 to
1941 (Leader Press). The Bombay Chronicle, Jubilee Number, March 3, 1938.

The Silver Jubilee Supplement of the Hindu, Sep. 21, 1903.,

May 4, 1925.

310
4

MISCELLANEOUS MODERN WORKS

Ashoka Mehta & Patwardhan: The Comniunal Triangle in India, Allahabad, 1924.

An Article on Arya Samaj in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

An Ankle on Brahmoism —do

Akshaya Kumar Dutta: Dharam Niti, Calcutta. Andrews C. F.: The Renaissance in India, Madras, 1913.

Andrews C. F. & Girija Mookerjee: The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India (Allen & Unwin,
1938).

What Congress have done to the untouchables, (1946).

Arnal Home—Rammohan Roy(Centinary Publicity Booklet No. 1). It contains an excellent

bibliography on the Raja.

A. Besant: The Future of Indian Politics, Bombay, 1922, India, a Nation (Fourth ed.) 1930. Wake up
India, T.P.H. Adyar, 1913. The Story of the Great War III ed., 1927.

Ambedkar: Ranade, Gandhi & Jinnah, Calcutta, 1943.

A. B. Keith: A Constitutional History of India (1900-1935) 2nd ed., London, 1937.

-Ambika Charan Mazumdar: Indian National Evolution, Natesan, Madras, 1917.

Avril: Awakening of India, a debate opened by Gothale, London, 1905.

Appadorai: Dyarchy in Practice (Oxford University Press,

1948).

A. B. Mande: A Scheme of Mass Education, Nagpur, 1925.

Bentham: A Fragment on Government (ed. by Montagu, Oxford, 1891).

Bentham: Emancipate your colonies (Bowring ed.).

B. B. Mazumdar: History of Political Thought in India, Ram-mohan to Dayanand, Calcutta

University, 1934.

Blunt, W. S.: Ideas about India, 1885.

: india under Ripon, 1909.

Blease, W. L.: A Short History of Liberalism (T. Fisher Unwin, 1913).

Bain, John Stuart Mill: A Criticism (London, 1882).

Bolts, W. : Considerations on Indian Affairs (1772). Bains: History of the Cotton Manufacture.

311
Brooks Adams: The Law of Civilization and Decay.

Banerjee: Indian Constitutional Documents, 3 Vols., Calcutta,

1948.

Bose, S. C.: The Indian Stru:4:1e, Calcutta, 1936.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 495

Barns, M. : The Indian Press (Allen & Unwin, 1940).

Basu, B. D.: Indian under the British Crown, Calcutta, 1933- Balfour, Lady Betty: Lord Lytton’s Indian
Administration, 1899. Bhatnagar & Gupta: Arvachin Europe, II part, Kanpur, 1954.

Bhatnagar, Dr. Ram Ratna: The Rise & Growth of Hindi Journalism, Allahabad, 1947.

Brojendra Nath Banerjee: An Early Chapter of the Press in Bengal (Modern Review, Nov. 1928).

B. Shiva Rao: The Industrial Worker in India (Allen Sc U.nwin), London, 1938.

Buchanan, Daniel H.: The Development of Capitalist Enter-prize in India, New York, 1934.

Bryce: Modern Democracies, Vol. I, 1920, Vol. II, 1929 (Mac. Sc Co.)

Bertrand Russel: Unpopular Essays (Allen & Unwin, London, 1950).

Beni Prasad : The Hindu-Muslim Question, Allahabad, 1941. B. P. Singh Roy: Parliamentary
Government in India.

Bisheshwar Prasad (Dr.): The Origin of Provincial Autonomy, Allahabad, 1936.

B. K. Thakore: Indian Administration, Bombay, 1922. Buch, M. A.: Rise and Growth of Indian
Liberalism. Chirol, Sir Valentine: Indian Unrest, London, 1910.

: Indian Old and New, 1921.

: India, 1925.

Carlton J. H. Hayes: A Political & Cultural History of Modern Europe, Vol. II.

Cornwallis’ Minute of Sep. 18, 1789.

Chesney, G. N. : India under Experiment, 1918.

Chintamani, C. Y. : (edited by) Indian Social Reform, Madras, 1901.

Cotton, H.: New India or India in Transition (1910).

Coupland, R. : The Indian Problem (1833-1935), 1945.

C. H. Philips: India, Hutchinson’s University, London, 1948. Curtis, L.: Dyarchy, 1920.

Dadabhai Naoroji: Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, London, 1901.

312
D. S. Sharma: The Renaissance of Hinduism (B. H. Univer-sity, 1944).

Digby, W.: Prosperous British India, London, 1901.

D. Graham Pole: India in Transition, London, 1932. Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vol.. I.

Edward & Garatt: Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India, 1934.

E. R. Pease: History of the Fabian Society ‘(II ed., London, 1925).

Elliott Dodds: Liberalism in Action (Allen & Unwin, London, 1922).

Frederick M. Watkins: The Political Tradition of the West, Cambridge, 1948.

Farquhar, J. N.: Modern Religious Movements in India, New York, 1918.

Fisher F. B.: India’s Silent Revolution (1920).

Fullop Miller: Lenin & Gandhi, London, 1927.

F. J. C.: The Social & Political Ideals of Some Representative Thinkers of Victorian Age, London, 1933.

Gandhi, M. K. : Economics of Khadi, Navjiwan Press, Ahmedabad, 1941.

: Constructive Programme, Its Meaning and Place, 1941.

•, : Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule (Revised

and edited), Ahmedabad, 1938.

: Non-violence in Peace and War, Navjiwan Press.

: Communal Unity, Navjiwan Press.

: Cent per cent Swadeshi, Navjiwan Press.

G. IL D. Cole: Fabian Socialism, London, 1943.

„ „ : British Working Class Politics, 1941.

G. P. Pillai: The Press in India (Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1899).

Gertrude M. Williams: The Passionate Pilgrim, New York, 1931.

Ganga Prasad Upadhyaya: The Origin, Scope & Mission of Arya Samaj, Allahabad, 1940.

G. H. Perris: The Industrial History of Modern England.

G. N. Singh: Indian Constitutional & National Development (2nd ed.) Delhi, 1950.

Guido de Ruggiero: A History of European Liberalism, trans-lated from Italian by R. G. Collingwood,

(London, 1927).

313
George Trevelyan: The Competition Wallah, 1864.

H. C. E. Zacharias: Renascent India, 1933.

Hobhouse, L. T.: Liberalism (The Home University Library), London, 1929.

H. R. James: On Education and Statesmanship in India, 1925. Hearnshaw: Democracy at the Cross-
ways.

Harold J. Laski: Democracy, in Crisis (Allen & Unwin, London, 1934).

: The, Rise of European Liberalism (Allen & Unwin Londozz; 1947) .

BIBLIOGRAPHY 497

· India’s Goal—published by G. A. Natesan, Madras (Date not given).

Ishwari Prasad (Dr.) and S. K. Subedar: A History of Modern India, Allahabad, 1951.

J. R. Seely: Expansion of England, 1883.

J. C. Sinha: Economic Annals of Bengal, 1927.

J. S. Schapiro: Liberalism and the Challenge of Fascism, Mc. Grow Hill, London, 1949.

James Mill: Colonies in Essays (London).

J. S. Mill: Utilitarianism, Liberty & Representative Govern. ment (Everyman’s Library, New York,
1910).

Principles of Political Economy, with an Introduction by W. J. Ashley, ed. (New York, 1909).

J. A. Sandbrook: A Hundred Years of Journalism in India (Asiatic Quarterly, 1921-1922).

Justin McCarthy: A History of Our Own Times from the Acces-sion of Queen Victoria to the General
Election of 1880, Vol. IV, 1881.

Kainlapati Tripathi & Purushottam Das Tandon: Patra our Patrakar, Banaras, 1944.

Keith A. B.: Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 3 Vols. (Oxford, 1938).

Karl Mannheim: “The Crisis in Valuation” in Diagnosis of our Time (1944).

Khan, Syed Ahmad: The Present State of Indian Politics, Allahabad, 1880.

Khan, The Aga: India in Transition, 1918.

·Keral Putra: The Working of Dyarchy in India, Bombay, 1928. L.S.S.O’. Malley: Modern India and the
West, Oxford, 1941. Lillingston: The Brahmo Samaj & Arya Samaj, London, 1901. Lovett, Sir Henry:
History of the Indian National Movement,

1919.

314
Lees Smith: Second Chambers—Theory & Practice.

Loveday, A.: History of Indian Famines, London, 1914. Loknathan: Industrial Organisation of sIndia,
1935.

L. H. Jenks: The Migration of British Capital.

Lal Bahadur (Dr.): The Muslim League, Agra, 1954.

M. V. Krishna Rao: The Growth of Indian Liberalism in the 19th Century, Mysore, 1951.

Macnicol: The Making of Modern India, 1924.

Macaulay, Lord: The Complete Works (London 1898-1920). Manoharlal Zutshi: Asian Protestantism,
1933.

Mac Iver, M. R.: The Web of Government, New York, 1947.

Marriott, J.A.R.: Modern Engtanjl, (1885-1945), London, 4th ed., 1948.

F. 63

M. P. Sharma (Dr.): British Samvidhan, Allahabad, 1953. Maxey: Political Philosophies, MacMillan,
1950.

Moreland & Chatterjee: A Short History of India.

Marx: Das Capital (The Modern Library, New York, 1906). Milton: Areopagitica (Clarendon Press,
Series, New ed., 1882).

The Tenures of Kings & Magistrates, Prose Works, Wallace ed., 1925.

Nehru, J.: The Discovery of India, Calcutta, 1945. Nevinson: The New Spirit in India, London, 1908.

Ostrogorski: Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties, Vol. I, translated by Fredrick Clarke,
London, 1902.

P. Mukherji: Indian Constitutional Documents, Vol. I, 2nd. ed., Calcutta, 1918, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1920.

P. Griffiths: The British Impact on India, London, 1952. P. Spratt: Gandhism, Madras, 1939.

Pattabhi Sitaramayya: Gandhi Sc Gandhism, 2 Vols. Allahabad, 1942.

: The History of the Indian National Congress, 2 Vols., Bombay, 1916.

Pyare Lal: The Epic Fast, Ahmedabad, 1932.

Pannikar: A Survey of Indian History, Bombay 7th imp., 1950. Richard Gregg: Gandhism & Socialism,
Madras, 1931.

R. P. Dutt: India To-day, Bombay, 1947.

315
R. C. Dutt: Economic History of India under early British Rule, 1901.

: Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, 5th Edition. London, 1906.

Ranade, M. G.: Essays on Indian Economics, Bombay, 1898.

„ : Religious and Social Reform (Compiled by

Kolaskar) Bombay, 1902.

Ram Chandra Rag!): Indian Polity, Madras, 1907.

Sitanath Tattavabhushan: The Philosophy of Brahmoism, Madras, 1901.

Shivanath Sastri:, History of Brahmo Samaj, 2 Vols., Calcutta, 1911-12.

Sabine, G. H.: A History of Political Theory, III ed., London, 1951.

Schuman: International Politics, 5th ed. (McGraw, London, 1953).

Shivaswami Aiyer P. .S.: Indian Constitutional Problems, Madras, 1928.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 499

Srinivas Sastri: Sir William Wedderburn--An Appreciation—

Indian Review, Feb. 1918 Pamphlet—Self-government for India, S. 1. S., Allahabad, 1916.

Evolution of Hindu Moral Ideals, Calcutta University, 1935.

Sister Nivedita: The Web of Indian National Life, Mayavati, Almora, 1951.

Stanley Reed: The India I Knew (1897-1947, London, 1952).

Toynbee„A.: The Industrial Revolution (Longmans & Co., London, 1920).

The Cambridge History of India, Vol. VI. 1936.

Vyas Rao: Future Government of India, London, 1918.

V. N. Naik: Indian Liberalism, Padma Publications, Bombay, 1945.

William Ebenstein: Fascist Italy, New York, 1939.

The Nazi State, New York, 1943.

W. Cunningham: Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, (Cambridge,

1922).

William Archer: India & the Future, London, 1917.

Wilfred Cant Well Smith: Modern Islam in India—A Social Analysis, Lahore, 1943.

316